Bringing my last post back to the thread topic, having law enforcement involved in a process that can’t lead to a fair trial – whether a security clearance or FBI nominee investigation – rarely leads to anything good.
And what do you have to support your theory?
Also, read this over:
Again, they’re not doing this just because it’s fun.
Yes, all you need to do is look at the entire history of espionage. When spies go shopping for secrets, they look at people with sympathetic politics, or desperate money needs, or some embarrassing secret. And the secrets are usually money or sex related.
Polygraph tests are worthless. Background checks most certainly are not.
Journalists in general have fewer resources than “national police forces” for purposes of investigating specific people.
True.
But sometimes they are more persistent.
True as well. Which is why it is good to have both. PhillyGuy seems to be saying journalists are sufficient, but I may be misinterpreting.
It depends on the resource.
If you mean more staff available to investigate cold cases that excite intense public interest, I just don’t know. Newspapers do make that a priority.
Our national police force does have other sorts of resources. It has polygraph examiners. I don’t respect that resource, but it is a resource. And the national police force can threaten to jail people who lie to its staff. So jail is another resource the WaPo lacks.
It seems to me that the extra resources the national police force has are ones that render it less than trustworthy. That’s why those they (or prosecutors) charge with crimes should have a right to a fair trial, with a presumption of innocence, where anyone who admits too much trust of law enforcement gets excluded from the jury.
As for Supreme Court candidates, the main thing I want investigated is their judicial philosophy.
Why does the ability to arrest people who lie to law enforcement make law enforcement inherently less than trustworthy?
No need to investigate. Read their writings and opinions, and ask them questions. No need for reporters or FBI.
But if you want to find out if they had a criminal record, or restraining orders, or owe a lot of money to criminals, then you need law enforcement. Journalists may be able to find that, depending on privacy laws and FOIA requests and timing. Or they may not. Law enforcement can.
Personally, I would be interested if a nominee had any of those characteristics. Would you want to know?
Exactly, it’s not illegal to lie to a reporter. It often is illegal to lie to law enforcement.
Many sensible people won’t risk talking to them and/or will be intimidated into telling them what they seem to want to hear.
Then the FBI would issue a report saying what people told them without reaching guilt and innocence conclusions, because that’s the job of prosecutors, and, ultimately jurors.
Criminal record?
Felony convictions result in disbarment.
Or are you suggesting that acquittal should be held against someone? I’m against that.
As for misdemeanor convictions, I think that once you paid the penalty, that should be the end of it.
Suppose we learn tomorrow that one of the many women in the life of liberal icon and longest ever serving justice William O. Douglas once had a restraining order against him. I don’t see why that makes it unfortunate he was confirmed. He may have been — probably was — bad as a family man, but was a good judge. As for Kavanaugh, my problem is with his judicial philosophy, not the fact he is presumed innocent of a criminal accusation.
You can’t use rules and statutes and case studies to talk about morality and ethics. Those are legal concepts, not moral ones. Morals don’t have written rules. They’re based on principles—those of fairness and harm reduction. These morals may result in rules and laws being made, but not the other way around. They are inherently subservient. (This is one issue where I won’t say “I believe” or use other softeners, either, because the alternative, that rules and laws govern what is moral is so obviously broken: it would mean it is wrong to fight against any authoritarian despot.)
So the moral discussion here is not about some rules, but about some principle. That principle is whether or not a person should be able to get out of a criminal investigation because corrupt officials working on that person’s behalf decided not to actually investigate. It is about whether or not someone can commit a crime and the police be allowed to lie about investigating said crime for the purpose of letting them get away with it.
And, let’s be clear here: the alleged crime would be sexual assault if it happened. That’s not something that is criminal but not immoral, nor is it some tiny crime. Obviously letting someone like that who supports said action be in power would be harmful, and thus we have every interest in preventing that. We have every reason to not want that. There is reason to believe that such a justice would undermine women’s rights, and find ways to let other sexual criminals get away with things. That which you choose to do and not admit or apologize for is that which you want to let others be able to do.
And, before I go on—I remind you that I am treating this as a potential situation, not one that definitely happened. That’s why I’m pushing investigation, not impeachment or arrest. An investigation must happen to determine the facts before anything else occurs. And it is Congress who is charge of that.
Congress may not employ Supreme Court justices, but they are the ones ultimately in charge of whether or not they get hired for the job, and have the ability to fire them from the job. They are like the HR department, empowered to investigate, even though technically the HR people don’t employ anyone. HR’s employer actually employs the worker. And Congress’s employer—the government of the United States of America—does effectively employ Supreme Court justices. And government is run by We The People.
It is in the best interest of the people of the United States not to have a sexual predator in a position of power. And the entity given the power to do something about it is Congress. It is in the best interest of people of the United States to make sure the FBI doesn’t lie about investigations. And Congress is, according the FBI themselves, one of the entities that holds them responsible.
I don’t believe there are rules or regulations that would make this impossible, for the reasons I stated above. Obviously this would just be the same investigation that they were supposed to have done in 2018 and lied about. But, if there were any, those rules and regulations would clearly be in conflict with the morals of the situation, and thus should be changed.
The alternative is that we the people of the United States have no power to keep criminals off the Supreme Court bench, and that is obviously not correct.
And, again, if Kavanaugh isn’t a criminal, he (and all who fight for him) have nothing to worry about. The investigation occurs, nothing is found, and all this fighting the investigation is pointless. So the fact so many fight suggests that they are worried something might be found.
Sexual assault is wrong. Sexual assault allegations must be investigated in a just society, to levy out punishment if found to be true, and prevent them from harming others. To try and find ways to avoid an investigation is to argue against a just society.
That is the moral component of this.
Such would depend on the reason for the restraining order—why it was granted. Then investigating what actually happened. Then taking into account the severity of the situation, and any subsequent mitigating factors to show that such is no longer a threat.
It would indeed be a tragedy if we found out that the reason for the restraining order was a sexual assault, that he was never punished for, nor made amends for. It would be horrible if he tried to argue it didn’t happen and we found out it did.
Granted, I don’t think this happened. But in a world where it did, then Douglas could not be trusted not to have perpetuated rape culture himself, and thus it would indeed be a tragedy to allow him to be in office.
Fortunately, it doesn’t seem that has happened in this reality. Either he didn’t do anything, or he has repudiated his views since then. The harm that we would reasonably believe could have occurred clearly didn’t.
(That is, I say that without deeply investigating this justice, and just granting your assessment of his judicial actions.)
???
I don’t know why you decided to resurrect a dispute I had with velcro weeks ago, but…Honestly, this isn’t an argument I want to get into again. I think I said my piece in my protracted exchange with velcro, which wound up being frustrating and unproductive, and I have no desire to pick it back up with you. I will point out once again, though, that there was no criminal investigation. The FBI conducted a “supplemental background check” of Brett Kavanaugh pursuant to his confirmation hearings. The FBI wouldn’t even have had jurisdiction over the alleged crime.
Sexual criminals are disbarred. Or do you mean alleged criminals who were never tried?
We know that if Trump had had to replace Kavanaugh, he would have replaced him with Barrett, who seems to be a little more more likely to overturn Roe AKA undermine women’s rights.
As for finding ways to let “sexual criminals to get away with things”, I think that’s a pejorative way to phrase what I want liberal justices to do, and expect they will — uphold the rights of criminal defendants to a thorough and fair trial.
So if you were hiring someone who had a few convictions for shoplifting and misdemeanor embezzlement over the last few years, you would not consider at all in your hiring decision?
Umm, because they decided they has something they wanted to say. And as far as I know, other posters are allowed to join our exchange without being chastised.
With all due respect, no one forced you to reply.
IMHO, employers who discriminate as you suggest are, jointly with the criminal, morally responsible for recidivism.
I can see a few exceptions where we might take away a professional license for life — the big example being the license of a teacher who was convicted of harming children.
Of course, we are getting far from Kavanaugh. The connection I see is that even conservatives should be judged by liberal principles.