US Politics: Judge Dread

[illrede]

20 minutes ago, Seli said:

No, he would have welcomed investigation in that case. And not lied in his conformation about the way he acted during his school years.

Of course the man is so ill suited the American Bar Association has voiced concerns for at least two of his nominations now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.37a1a7588645

 Their standing committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously endorse his qualifications.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No one think that to someone without liberal priors Kavanaugh's statement seemed to be just how an innocent person would react to false accusations (I thought it was very convincing) and that therefore Republicans have every reason to push ahead with the confirmation because refusing to let a good man be injured by old and unverifiable allegations is the right thing to do. 

Yes yes, tell us about "liberal priors" after all the conservative conspiracy mongering and policy screw ups.

And then of course is there is the plain old fact that many Republicans just don't care if he was guilty. There has been at least two post on this topic in this thread.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No one think that to someone without liberal priors Kavanaugh's statement seemed to be just how an innocent person would react to false accusations (I thought it was very convincing) and that therefore Republicans have every reason to push ahead with the confirmation because refusing to let a good man be injured by old and unverifiable allegations is the right thing to do. 

Hmm. I find it quite interesting that conservatives all of sudden have this keen interest in people getting convicted on basically one witness testimony, when this sort of thing does happen in criminal courts. 
And when these sort of convictions do happen, appellate courts are usually very leery overturning them. I don't know if there are any criminal lawyers here, but I'm willing to venture they would say, that getting conviction reversed is much easier when the source of error is legal, rather than claiming that the finder of fact made a mistake.
But, you know white conservative rich guy is getting accused of stuff, ya know, time to break out the ACLU membership cards.

I don't know much about Kavanaugh's criminal jurisprudence, but I do have to wonder how much he worried his little old conservative heart out when Billy or Jenny from the block got jammed up in the legal system based on the testimony from one witness, particularly if the main witness was a cop.

[butterbumps!]

 

50 minutes ago, illrede said:

I thought it was implied. If you can assume innocence or failing that assume that any other given person could (which you ought to be able to, as the point of contention is non-falsifiable- you're getting opinions here), there shouldn't be any confusion.

I think those of us confused by the GOP calculus in pushing him are referring to things beyond what you’re accounting for.   We’re not just talking about the sexual assault allegations.   He’s not really a clean candidate, as there’s a history of lying and being misleading (and seli linked to the American Bar Association voicing concerns about him once before, as well as now).  His behavior in light of the allegations is just as much a concern for us as the allegations themselves, and not befitting the position he’s up for.   Beyond the problems of temperament, rage, and unprofessionalism on display during that hearing, he refused to answer questions, he refused to ask for an investigation that would clear his name, and what he did answer were lies (from stupid shit like claiming he didn’t watch Ford’s testimony, to claiming to be this wholesome Boy Scout in high school and college, which contradicts basically everyone who knew him that’s spoken on record about him, to things like claiming “devil’s triangle” means a drinking game and that “Renate Alumnus” means something other than claiming to have had sexual contact with her).  Even if someone in the GOP base is unsure of which story is correct in this particular accusation of attempted rape, the performance he gave should leave no question that he is unsuited to this job.  

Even if one thinks “the average” person might rage, refuse to answer questions, refuse to allow an investigation to clear their name, attack your interviewers, and casually lie if confronted with similar allegations, does one truly believe that displaying said behavior at a job interview should land that person the position?   And even if you believe people who behave as he did at a job interview should get the job in question, why wouldn’t you hold the person trying out for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land to a much loftier standard?   

ETA: here’s something from a few days ago that lays out kavanaugh’s splotchy history with truth https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17893134/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegation-dishonest.   I don’t find the first one outstandingly convincing, but keep reading the list.

ETA 2:  And it’s not just the ABA who’s voiced misgivings.  The ACLU has come out as well on this.  Like, that’s kind of serious if the SC is to have integrity moving forward.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Kavanaugh's partisan involvement in the Clinton hearing should be enough to disqualify him - this was a guy who's job was stoking conspiracy theories and spinning a political shitstorm to take down a political opponent by any means necessary.  All judges are going to be political, but they shouldn't be someone who has been a blatant political operative in the past.  

Hilarious that two of the posters here are saying, "but if you assume he's innocent, then he's innocent."

[Seli]

30 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Source?

This isn't him just saying him saying he did not drink to excess and someone else calling him a 'sloppy drunk' is it?

If it is that's rather subjective. 

A nice analysis here https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Some more very likely lies https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17911728/brett-kavanaugh-boof-definition-supreme-court

[Fragile Bird]

I've been watching various Republican talking heads show up on CNN for discussion panels about Kavanaugh, and it's been very interesting to see how the interviews have changed. The Republicans are all screaming, the males are talking all over any woman presenting the other viewpoint, and screaming, and the women are also trying to railroad women and are screaming how disgusting the person with the other viewpoint is. It's like they are all playing mini-Kavanaughs playing up to make Trump happy. 

[Chaircat Meow]

37 minutes ago, Seli said:

A nice analysis here https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

 

A Phd candidate in sociology who runs a left-wing magazine and is author of a book called Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity, seriously?

Look, I will be an honest kitty, I have not really read that thoroughly, I have better things to do. 

But it seems we have four main contentions there:

1) BK's 'I never attended a gathering like that' is contradicted by his own subsequent statements.

2) BK says 'x or y said it didn't happen' when they really only said they had no memory of it happening.

3) DF's school and social circle were closer to BK's than BK makes out.

4) Evidence of BKs drinking contradicts the image of his younger self he portrays. 

My response;

1) It is hardly a lie if the rest of your statement puts it in context, is it? Clearly he meant 'I never went to that gathering, where someone was sexually assaulted by me (BK) and whoever else.' If he was making a stand on the grounds that he never went to smallish parties with eight or so people, why would he later attest to that very thing, didn't he write his own statement? 

2) BK is guilty of a technical inaccuracy here but not a lie. None of these people can provide any support to DF's account, so, in that sense, they say it didn't happen or as good as. As Robinson notes, 'This may seem like hair-splitting.' Yes, it does.

3) I don't follow the logic so much here, he makes much of BK living closer to the Country Club than DF did, but that wasn't even part of the argument. In addition, BK said he hung out with the girls from the Catholic schools, not the schools nearest to him, so the map doesn't prove this is a lie just because it shows DF's school lies in between the Catholic schools. 

4) This seems to be the central fallacy here. If you're accused of sexual assault and you don't have an alibi and the accuser is not obviously unbelievable and the account is not internally inconsistent all you have to fall back on is your character.  And there is no evidence presented here that BK lied about this, namely that he was a good student, went to Church did boy-scoutish things and played sports etc. He was presenting the most relevant aspects of his character to the hearing. 

He may have played down the drinking but who is to say which parts of your behaviour define your character? Chaircat Meow was also a diligent student and took first class honours from the highest institution in the land but some people might remember him in a port-induced haze. If Chaircat presented his early youth as one of diligent study and omitted any mention of port he would not be lying, just presenting what he took to be the most relevant part of his character. If you let people focus on one aspect of yourself which is less than flattering you are doing yourself a disservice. 

I think this Nathan Robinson is a real worm btw.

Anyway, who knows who is telling the truth here. But when we have people earnestly quoting this tripe as 'nice analysis' you know the other side are not interested in the truth of 1) either the accusation itself or 2) the fall back accusation of lying at the hearings. 

 

[Ser Reptitious]

This about sums it up: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/#.W7EvpmbvOu4.facebook

[Zorral]

Yah, with bro-bro bk on the SCOTUS they can sell beer endorsement to many a beer corporation and then fund a scanty-clad team of cheerleaders to do routines during the cases brought forward in favor of what their russian and nazi and corporate masters want (and then used for sexual assault in between cases games. That's what the SCOTUS is reduced to with jokers like bk among them.

In the meantime, Willie's on our team Beto O'Rourke, to the great shock of some Texians:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/orourke-offers-blue-vision-for-red-texas-during-nelson-show

From the end of the piece:

Quote

 

Some detractors have posted online comments chiding Nelson for backing a “socialist” and calling for boycotts, but Nelson has shrugged those off.

“I love flack,” he said on ABC’s “The View.” ”We’re not happy ’til they’re not happy.”

 

His cannabis company, Willie’s Reserve, responded to conservatives’ calls to burn Nelson records by deadpanning on Twitter: “If you’re going to burn something, burn Willie’s Reserve.”

 

But the real point of the piece is that so-called moderate Dems have lost and lost and lost, and Beto's having none of that, because there's no point bothering.

[Ser Reptitious]

SNL's take on the Kavanagh hearing is spot on! Here's the link, in case you haven't seen it yet: 

 

[Ormond]

7 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

 

And on the second point, I think that would make more sense if this was happening before primaries.  I totally get that the GOP punishes its politicians, but isn’t that what they use primary season for?   I’m with Morpheus on this— it’s inconceivable to me that they’d purposely cede an open seat and let Dems take over as a form of punishment to their leaders.   I’d think they’d fall in line and make more of a point to get to the polls if the seat is still open.

 

The Republicans who are worried about dropping Kavanaugh making the "base" less likely to vote are not worried about the entire base -- who they are worried about are non-college-educated low information voters who identify as "Evangelicals" (whether they go to church or not). Many of these are people for whom abortion and overturning Roe vs. Wade are the paramount issue, and the main reason they voted Republican in the first place. They are also people who tend to believe ALL politicians are dishonest and crooked. So the fear is that not confirming Kavanaugh will demoralize these voters and cause them to throw up their hands and say "what's the use." This may not seem like a logical reaction, but the fear is that these less educated voters --who precisely because they are working class feel more powerless in their everyday lives -- will have this emotional reaction, because they do not think in terms of strategic voting at all. Republican voters who would "double down" on intentions to vote and see the irrationality in  not "punishing" their leaders for a Kavanaugh failure would for the most part be among those who would show up to vote anyway -- it's the less educated low information voters who are harder to motivate to show up at the polls in the first place who might have this irrational emotional reaction.

I am not at all sure the Republicans who fear the above are correct about it. But that's what they fear -- and partly because some right wing "Evangelical" leaders are themselves promoting the idea that this could occur. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

It is impossible at this moment to envisage the Republican Party coming back. Like a brontosaurus with some brain-eating disorder it might lumber forward in the direction dictated by its past, favoring deregulation of businesses here and standing up to a rising China there, but there will be no higher mental functioning at work. And so it will plod into a future in which it is detested in a general way by women, African Americans, recent immigrants, and the educated young as well as progressives pure and simple. It might stumble into a political tar pit and cease to exist or it might survive as a curious, decaying relic of more savage times and more primitive instincts, lashing out and crushing things but incapable of much else.

The Republican Party Abandons Conservatism

The conservative virtues remain real virtues, the conservative insights real insights, and the conservative temperament an indispensable internal gyro keeping a country stable and sane.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/republican-party-conservative/571747/

[Serious Callers Only]

Technocratic rats leaving sinking ships.

Only the ship is not sinking, because there will be a coup. This is literally the 'rational' result of the GOP sunk cost fallacy of corruption and immorality and what Russia wants. When the alternative is going to prison, you betcha that scum will whinge and whine and plot before doing everything possible to avoid it, up to and including insanely counter-productive things, as should be obvious by current events. Look for such great events like 're-enact the trail of tears, now with only children' or 'death camps or summer camps?' and more 'light treason'.

[butterbumps!]

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

4) This seems to be the central fallacy here. If you're accused of sexual assault and you don't have an alibi and the accuser is not obviously unbelievable and the account is not internally inconsistent all you have to fall back on is your character.  And there is no evidence presented here that BK lied about this, namely that he was a good student, went to Church did boy-scoutish things and played sports etc. He was presenting the most relevant aspects of his character to the hearing. 

He may have played down the drinking but who is to say which parts of your behaviour define your character? Chaircat Meow was also a diligent student and took first class honours from the highest institution in the land but some people might remember him in a port-induced haze. If Chaircat presented his early youth as one of diligent study and omitted any mention of port he would not be lying, just presenting what he took to be the most relevant part of his character. If you let people focus on one aspect of yourself which is less than flattering you are doing yourself a disservice. 

I think this Nathan Robinson is a real worm btw.

Anyway, who knows who is telling the truth here. But when we have people earnestly quoting this tripe as 'nice analysis' you know the other side are not interested in the truth of 1) either the accusation itself or 2) the fall back accusation of lying at the hearings. 

 

Ok.  I didn’t read the article, but it seems worthwhile to address your misapprehension of why people are taking such a strong issue with his self-history.    If you were directly questioned on whether you were ever in a “port-induced haze”, but claimed to never be in a “port-induced haze,” then yes, you would be telling a lie.     That’s not merely telling an abridged or selectively edited biography.   He’s not merely omitting the drunken stupors/ alcohol-induced rage episodes from his personal story.   I don’t think anyone would really take much issue with that.   The problem is that he’s been going so far as to claim a squeaky clean choir boy image, an image that is wholly uncorroborated, and worse, fully contradicted by, everything from his fellow students’ accounts (and I’m not merely referring to Dr Ford and his other accusers, but basically everyone who’s spoken on record about him), to Mark Judge’s memoirs, to his own yearbook entries.     So that’s the problem.   He keeps trying to claim a history that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and keeps telling actual lies when directly questioned  about it (for example, lying that the “ralphing” reference wasn’t about alcohol-induced vomit, but rather a delicate stomach, which itself was told as part of a larger context of lies about whether he’d ever drunk to excess).

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

The Republicans who are worried about dropping Kavanaugh making the "base" less likely to vote are not worried about the entire base -- who they are worried about are non-college-educated low information voters who identify as "Evangelicals" (whether they go to church or not). Many of these are people for whom abortion and overturning Roe vs. Wade are the paramount issue, and the main reason they voted Republican in the first place. They are also people who tend to believe ALL politicians are dishonest and crooked. So the fear is that not confirming Kavanaugh will demoralize these voters and cause them to throw up their hands and say "what's the use." This may not seem like a logical reaction, but the fear is that these less educated voters --who precisely because they are working class feel more powerless in their everyday lives -- will have this emotional reaction, because they do not think in terms of strategic voting at all. Republican voters who would "double down" on intentions to vote and see the irrationality in  not "punishing" their leaders for a Kavanaugh failure would for the most part be among those who would show up to vote anyway -- it's the less educated low information voters who are harder to motivate to show up at the polls in the first place who might have this irrational emotional reaction.

I am not at all sure the Republicans who fear the above are correct about it. But that's what they fear -- and partly because some right wing "Evangelical" leaders are themselves promoting the idea that this could occur. 

That’s interesting, thanks for the explanation.   On the bolded, I knew that particular demographic never really turns out for midterms anyway, but I guess that’s the point— that the margin is expected to be pretty thin, so keeping these bonus voters engaged is crucial, and leadership believes an antagonistic (toward dems) angle is the way to do it.   I’m a little surprised the GOP play is to activate these voters as opposed to the suburban/ moderate vote, especially because I’d have thought ramming this particular guy through would push the suburbs/ moderates away, and because I thought those people were likelier  to come to the polls than the men you describe.   I guess the GOP is just not even pretending to be a party that welcomes women anymore?

[Martell Spy]

Comey Weighs In On Kavanaugh Probe: ‘Little Lies Point To Bigger Lies’
In an op-ed, the former FBI director said the fact-gathering process is “not as hard as Republicans hope it will be”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-comey-on-fbi-kavanaugh-probe_us_5bb13340e4b0c7575966396c

Quote

“Yes, the alleged incident occurred 36 years ago. But F.B.I. agents know time has very little to do with memory,” Comey wrote. “They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory. They also know that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.”

 

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Triskjavikson said:

I sure want this to be true, but I thought this is where we were during the Bush years.

 

Back yet again to the whole "GOP needs this for the base" thing:  

I had a revelation (I'm sure someone else has said this before) that it's really a message aimed at Republican Senators.  There's a faction within the GOP world that knows that November is already looking bad but wants their right-wing SCOTUS at all cost and would consider a bad November a small price to pay.  This faction does not give a shit if Dean Heller loses his Nevada Senate seat.  

It's like that faction is just trying to send a subliminal message to GOP Senators like a Jedi mind-trick "You must confirm Kavanaugh."

Well, that would explain why it doesn't make sense. However, if it is a faction behind this obsessed with a conservative SC, there is the fact the chances are very high that there is going to be a conservative SC, frat boy or no frat boy.

Maybe there is a real fear that something else will go awry, but it is not really rational. Sure, if you are a conspiracy theorist and think that the Democrats just created a huge sex scandal whole cloth, you might believe that those diabolical Democrats will then pull out another big plan to sink the second nomination. The reality though, is the Gorsuch nomination is probably what the second run would look like.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Speaking with CNN host Christi Paul, Michael Moore -- who served as a U.S. Attorney in Georgia -- said the FBO investigation into Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford's claims could open up a Pandora's box from the judge.

"I want to ask you," Paul asked. "How might it affect him, affect the vote if they can't corroborate what Dr. Ford says but can find that there was really serious alcohol use here that did impair his decisions?"

"We've heard about this being a trial and what the burden of proof is," Moore began. "When you have an investigation, they will look at his credibility. If a witness says he was impaired, passed out, these are small things that we can see that he's maybe not telling the truth about. When you don't tell the truth on the little things, it casts doubt on your version of the big things."

"If they develop evidence where he's been drinking and passed out, that's a problem," he continued. "They'll be interested, and frankly, I've been through the background checks, they want to know whether or not you've got an alcohol problem, whether or not you've got a substance abuse problem, has that been going on through his life. he was clear probably a dozen times when he talked about his affinity for drinking beer now. Nothing wrong with somebody having a beer. if this is a pattern through his life, that will end up in a report during his background check."

 

Former US Attorney Explains How Kavanaugh's 'Little Lies' Will Catch Up to Him
Michael Moore -- who served as a U.S. Attorney in Georgia -- said the FBO investigation into Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford's claims could open up a Pandora's box from the judge.

https://www.alternet.org/former-us-attorney-explains-how-kavanaughs-little-lies-will-catch-him

[DMC]

15 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I don’t think I fully understand some of the stated logic in rushing through the nomination.  I get that the GOP is afraid of losing the Senate, and as such have incentive to place someone before that happens.   But why can’t they withdraw this chode and nominate someone else, even if that person would end up being seated during a lame duck period?   Does it become more difficult merely in terms of public perception (because if so, I can’t imagine the GOP giving much of a shit), or are there actual structural barriers that make it uncertain if someone would be placed?

I guess the philosophical answer is politicians, and particulars GOP Senators, tend to be risk averse.  If they know they can confirm Kavanaugh now, that means they have a 100% chance of securing a conservative majority on SCOTUS.  If they wait until after the election for another nominee, no one can tell you for sure what happens.  Maybe Collins starts to cold feet after the election results.  Maybe Flake or Corker decide to abstain if Sinema or Bredesen win their seats (respectively).  Maybe the new nominee encounters issues of his/her own.  You, nor I, might not think any of those things likely, but there's a greater than zero chance they may happen.  So it boils down to if you prefer securing the conservative majority on SCOTUS with 100 percent certainty, or do not want to risk electoral backlash.

The problem with that alternative electoral concern, which may in a regular cycle have already made Kavanaugh unpalatable given the GOP's slim majority, is that only two incumbents have any chance of losing - Heller and Cruz.  We all know Cruz is going to vote yea no matter what, and so will Heller at this point, if only because he's already royally fucked up flip-flopping on the health care vote and I suspect he anticipates doing so again would be the most hurtful politically (which he's almost certainly right).

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Hundreds migrant children are being moved in the middle of the night from shelters across the country to tent camps in Tornillo, Texas, according to a report from the New York Times. The move was made as a way to create more space for the increasing number of children being detained by the government.

Earlier this month, it was reported that 12,400 migrant children were being detained by the United States, many of them coming into the country unaccompanied by adults. That number is five times what it was in May 2017.

Shelter workers anonymously told the Times that moves are done in the middle of the night to limit the likelihood of children attempting to escape once they discover that they are being moved.

The children were reportedly moved to make space for new children who are arriving into the country. The decision to move the children was based on who was likely to be taken in by a sponsor first. The Times reports that the children moved to the “tent city” in Texas are 13 to 17 years old, and are not expected to stay in custody for long.

 

But advocates are worried that these children will not be released soon, and could be held for months.

The Government Moved Hundreds of Migrant Children to Tent Camps in the Middle of the Night

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/migrant-children-tent-city-in-middle-of-night-ice-detention-center.html