When? I genuinely don’t know.
1 Like
And this is why I asked the question about someone claiming to have seen Kavanaugh disposing of a body, with the same amount of corroborating evidence. It feels as if an attempted rape allegation causes so many to want the burden of proof to be placed on the accused, where I doubt they’d want it otherwise.
1 Like
You don’t genuinely think that’s possible with Kav, right?
If 1 out of 6 women were murdered, you’d probably find that ‘uncorroborated’ claims in that regard would be given more weight.
You’ll forgive me for not finding your ‘feels’ on this subject to be…corroborating?
Absent the discovery of a Betamax showing him doing it–and assuming someone can dig up a working Betamax player–no.
1 Like
No. No I wouldn’t. My gosh I hope nobody does. I would hope some shred of evidence would at least be required. and not simply #believeher
1 Like
That’s been the central issue about this whole process for me, and why I crawled out of my comfortable cave where I don’t really give politics a whole lot of attention.
1 Like
No, it’s not a logical fallacy - but given the time frame and the nature of a claim (it’s not a a science experiment to testca theory, it’s an allegation of wrongdoing) it is about assigning the burden of proof. Common sense says it’s on her, not on him. If Democrats wanted to start with an investigation that starts with no presumption and just wants to look at information coldly and objectively, they should have started when Kavanaugh was nominated.
The “job interview” argument has run out of shelflife - just because it it wasn’t a trial of Kavanaugh doesn’t mean our notions of basic fairness get shitcanned when someone alleges he broke the law.
Yes, it was a job interview, no it wasn’t a trial - but fairness isn’t situational.
1 Like
Here. If someone accuses your (general, nobody specific) son or brother of a serious crime–not even in a court, but anywhere–you don’t want society to see the burden of proof as being with the accuser? Come on, we’re only hearing this because of the politics. Nobody really believes that. Right? Um, right?
You’re reading what you want to read, not what I’m writing. I said “‘uncorroborated’ claims…would be given more weight.” This statement in no way warrants your reaction.
No. Consider: You’re interviewing someone for a position at your company. He gives you an uneasy feeling–you can’t put your finger on it, just a sense that he’s not quite right. Question: Is there some ‘burden of proof’ you have to meet to not hire him? Should he enjoy some sort of ‘presumption of innocence’ such that you are morally obligated to hire him until/unless you can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he ain’t right?
Prior to the allegations? Sure, that makes sense.
Hardly. What you mean is, the ‘job interview argument’ is inconvenient for your preferred outcome.
Of course fairness is situational. What’s considered ‘fair’ in a court of law has no bearing on what’s considered fair in, say, a court of tennis.
Absent context, this is unanswerable.
Yes. Your hypo is nothing like what happened. Nobody had an “icky” feeling - Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed, he was ready to be hired when someone came forward and claimed he had broken the law. In that case, since he’d already proven himself to be hire-worthy, the fair thing to do is to give him the presumption of innocence and test the claims.
Since I’ve already gone on record as saying I don’t think Kavanaugh’s the man for the job after all this, want to try something different?
4 Likes
Well, alright, time will tell. And, hey, it’s not over yet. Still have tonight and part of tomorrow for folks to crossover or a big bombshell to drop.
You’re a gentleman, and I thank you
Yeah, you missed the point entirely.
Pretty sure it’s over. For now.
1 Like
Why specifically?
I havent read all of this thread if already posted above.
Very foreboding. I imagined you putting your shades on as you turn to walk off, tossing the “For now” back over your shoulder.
2 Likes
Seemed more like this to me
1 Like
Rofl, awesome.
All good natured fun @EyeDentist. I respect what you’re saying, honestly. Thank you.
2 Likes
Temperment. And integrity. I didn’t like the fibs to try and cover up that he was an obnoxious prep school boor, but those weren’t dealbreakers. I thought his performance proved he wasn’t cut from the right cloth - delving into the partisan politics (and naming the Clinton political machine as a foe?) was a serious problem, and above all what turned me against him was that it was all manufactured Trumpian theater to try to impress Trump himself to prevent getting his nomination yanked.
That’s bad judgment. The presidency has already been infected with that nonsense, and it certainly doesn’t belong in the nation’s highest court when impartiality is the most important trait a person can have.
I’m not convinced he’ll be impartial after that display.
2 Likes
EyeDentist: your blinders are really on with this one.
You cited Samuel Chase, which happened in 1800, BUT Chase was “acquitted by the Senate and stayed in office.”
And also, from a quick wiki check: “The House of Representatives impeached Chase on eight articles of impeachment, all centering on Chases’s alleged political bias. The Senate voted to acquit Chase on all counts, and Chase served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811. Some historians have argued that Chase’s acquittal set an important precedent regarding the independence of the federal judiciary.”
Professional qualifications aside, Kavanaugh does not seem like a “nice guy” (whatever that means), and 'Da 'Dems have wound him up big time.
Let’s all hope Kavanaugh is a “better” man than given credit for, and will be able to remain the same impartial judge his previous positions have proven him to be.