Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I was, but I understood that this is not a criminal prosecution, and nothing I’ve said is inconsistent with that.

Telling someone “How many times do people have to tell you …” implies that people have told something multiple times to the person being addressed, which he consistently fails to grasp. This is what you were incorrectly implying here.

No big deal, and it’s not like I’m unfamiliar with your posting style. But worth a comment.
We’re not discussing what the law is but whether it’s moral or not. From that perspective, whether the law currently treats it differently is an arbitrary line.

Sending people to jail wrongly is one type of high stakes. Scuttling SC nominations is another type of high stakes. No doubt there are yet other forms of high stakes which from a moral perspective would be comparable or worse than sending people to jail but which the law doesn’t single out because they’re rare enough that they don’t warrant explicit exceptions. (E.g. suppose you could avoid a war by speculating about the guilt of so-and-so.)

[I should also add that beyond even legal ethics, people routinely speculate about the guilt of various supposed suspects to assorted crimes, e.g. that Burke Ramsey killed his sister etc. etc. etc. It’s pretty widely accepted as an acceptable thing to do. But my point earlier was about legal ethics, and I stand by that as well.]Allowing such tenuous accusations to influence SC nominations is bad for society as a whole.

As I said at the outset of this discussion, I think even if the allegations are completely true he should be confirmed anyway. But I also think there’s a Heckler’s Veto aspect as well.

You were the one who first raised the analogy to a criminal trial. You’ve lost the plot.

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

But if you’re going to say that people who tend to believe a woman giving a credible case of sexual assault constitute a “mob,” then I think you’ve made your bias clear.

I’ll add that that’s especially true when the point of this “mob” is not that the credible case disqualifies Kavanaugh by its existence, but rather that it’s sufficiently credible to require a thorough investigation before Kavanaugh’s nomination is voted on.

I don’t know what an investigation would turn up. But if it turns up solid evidence that Dr. Ford is a fabulist, both the Judiciary Committee and the American public should see that evidence.

At which point Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be a slam-dunk, much to my chagrin. But if that’s what the evidence turns out to be, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. But actively avoiding trying to find the facts, with a Supreme Court seat on the line, is a sin against this country.

[Ashtura]

@RTFirefly

But if it turns up solid evidence that Dr. Ford is a fabulist, both the Judiciary Committee and the American public should see that evidence.

This could also possibly be revealed next week, or not.

Also, it is possible that an FBI investigation could go forward, clear Kavenaugh, and Kavanaugh is appointed. Then, a movie, executive produced by Ford, could come out 20 years from now on HBO, with the nodding approval of everyone convinced Kavenaugh was guilty.

Anything’s possible.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

You really think (in this hypothetical) that lying about attempted rape shouldn’t be disqualifying for the SCOTUS?

It doesn’t follow from the story being true that he’s lying about it. He could just not remember it, if he was as drunk as she claims, and not believe he was once capable of such a thing.

If he’s deliberately lying about it, then it’s more complicated and gets you into issues of moral relativism (lying in order to avoid an undeserved consequence).

[FWIW, I think Clarence Thomas was probably lying in his testimony (as was Anita Hill) but he made a fine Justice.]

[CoolHandCox]

@AK84

:dubious:
You do realise that witness coaching is seven ways unethical according to ABA?
Since that’s what you are proposing there

I said it was the the truth. I’m teaching her to be effective with the truth.

A normal person wouldn’t think the mode of transportation on how she got home is important. I think, very subtly, it is important for her to tell people about that. I think Ford would agree after we discussed it. I can think of a hundred other things she would not think to say, that would make her truthful story more persuasive, that Ford would agree with. She needs help (I’m guessing).

If she did not ride a bicycle home (or didn’t remember one way or the other), then yes, that would be horribly unethical.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

You were the one who first raised the analogy to a criminal trial. You’ve lost the plot.

No, I’m quite on top of things.

I said that the morality of suggesting the guilt of tenuously connected bystanders in this instance would be comparable to the morality of suggesting the guilt of tenuously connected bystanders in a criminal trial, which is widely accepted. That doesn’t suggest that I think this is a criminal trial, only that I think the morality would be comparable.

Your response was to imply that I continually need to be reminded that this is not a criminal proceeding, which - as you subsequently seemed to acknowledge - was false.

[RTFirefly]

@Ashtura

This could also possibly be revealed next week, or not.

Also, it is possible that an FBI investigation could go forward, clear Kavenaugh, and Kavanaugh is appointed. Then, a movie, executive produced by Ford, could come out 20 years from now on HBO, with the nodding approval of everyone convinced Kavenaugh was guilty.

Anything’s possible.

You seem to be implying that the FBI investigation in 1991 cleared Thomas. Haven’t reviewed things in awhile, but I don’t remember its being a slam-dunk for either Thomas or Hill.

[RTFirefly]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

No, I’m quite on top of things.

I said that the morality of suggesting the guilt of tenuously connected bystanders in this instance would be comparable to the morality of suggesting the guilt of tenuously connected bystanders in a criminal trial, which is widely accepted. That doesn’t suggest that I think this is a criminal trial, only that I think the morality would be comparable.

Your response was to imply that I continually need to be reminded that this is not a criminal proceeding, which - as you subsequently seemed to acknowledge - was false.

The point of saying that this isn’t a criminal trial is this: that we are, for very good reason, required to meet a high standard - “beyond a reasonable doubt” - before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.

The reverse is true here: before being appointed to the highest court in the land, we should be sure that it’s the nominee who meets a very high standard.

If we’re not sure of that - if we have reasonable doubts as to his character and integrity - then he should be kept off the Court.

ETA: Josh Barro: “I think we are excessively concerned about whether political processes are fair to the politicians we like, rather than whether they serve the public well. They are instruments, here to serve us.”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RTFirefly

The point of saying that this isn’t a criminal trial is this: that we are, for very good reason, required to meet a high standard - “beyond a reasonable doubt” - before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.

The reverse is true here: before being appointed to the highest court in the land, we should be sure that it’s the nominee who meets a very high standard.

If we’re not sure of that - if we have reasonable doubts as to his character and integrity - then he should be kept off the Court.

This is all very nice if directed at some other argument, but none of it has any logical connection to the specific issue under discussion.

The standard of proof would clearly be different in criminal trials and in SC nominations, as you say. Of course. But here, the issue is about other evidence that has a bearing on the likelihood of the allegations being true, and whether it’s worth suffering the collateral damage on an uninvolved and potentially innocent person in order to better determine the truth. It’s a question of how to balance competing interests.

The differing standards of proof don’t come into play.

[drad_dog]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This is all very nice if directed at some other argument, but none of it has any logical connection to the specific issue under discussion.

The standard of proof would clearly be different in criminal trials and in SC nominations, as you say. Of course. But here, the issue is about other evidence that has a bearing on the likelihood of the allegations being true, and whether it’s worth suffering the collateral damage on an uninvolved and potentially innocent person in order to better determine the truth. It’s a question of how to balance competing interests.

The differing standards of proof don’t come into play.

This is your whole statement? Can you diagram it so that your argument becomes visible?

[Omar_Little]

@CoolHandCox

I agree. And this will be tailored to Kavanaugh. So he will either go second (and last), or first and third. He will under no circumstance go first only.

That’s an advantage. He’s going to get a lot of these “minor” advantages.

Generally the defense is allowed to hear the accusations made against them and then defend themselves. I have never seen any cases where the accused presents their defense first, and then the accuser (or prosecution) proceeds with their case.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It doesn’t follow from the story being true that he’s lying about it. He could just not remember it, if he was as drunk as she claims, and not believe he was once capable of such a thing.

If he’s deliberately lying about it, then it’s more complicated and gets you into issues of moral relativism (lying in order to avoid an undeserved consequence).

[FWIW, I think Clarence Thomas was probably lying in his testimony (as was Anita Hill) but he made a fine Justice.]

Okay, we have profoundly different standards (or systems) of morality. But I guess we already knew that.

[Steophan]

@RTFirefly

I don’t know what an investigation would turn up. But if it turns up solid evidence that Dr. Ford is a fabulist, both the Judiciary Committee and the American public should see that evidence.

At which point Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be a slam-dunk, much to my chagrin. But if that’s what the evidence turns out to be, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. But actively avoiding trying to find the facts, with a Supreme Court seat on the line, is a sin against this country.

Since there’s already plenty of evidence that the party she described never happened, it’s unlikely that anyone who’s currently against Kavanaugh would change their mind. It’s been asked, several times, in this thread what Kavanaugh could theoretically do to clear his name, or what an investigation could theoretically turn up that would exculpate him, and those who have decided without evidence to believe that he’s guilty refuse to say what would do it.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Returning to an earlier theme, saw this today:

@AP

Your beliefs and expectations shape what you perceive in your life and how you later remember those events, researchers say.

“You are constructing the reality out there as it happens, and therefore you get stuck with that … as the most accurate you can have for your memory,” said David Rubin, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. “That’s all you have to base your memory on.”

So in a situation where a woman fears being raped by a man, her memories might be shaped by that fear into a recollection that overestimates the threat, whereas the man might consider it “just playing around” and simply forget it later on, Rubin said. And both could be completely honest about their recollections.

[Ravenman]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The standard of proof would clearly be different in criminal trials and in SC nominations, as you say. Of course. But here, the issue is about other evidence that has a bearing on the likelihood of the allegations being true, and whether it’s worth suffering the collateral damage on an uninvolved and potentially innocent person in order to better determine the truth. It’s a question of how to balance competing interests.

I agree that there are interests to be balanced here… but the least compelling interest is the one expressed by the Republican Majority that there is a need to wrap this up quickly. I see no need to draw this out for a long time, but there’s literally no compelling reason I can think of that a delay of another week, two, or three matters in any way whatsoever. We’re talking about a lifetime appointment. Odds are that he will have decades on the court: what’s a couple more days or weeks before that tenure starts?

The differing standards of proof don’t come into play.

You lost me here.

[CoolHandCox]

@Omar_Little

Generally the defense is allowed to hear the accusations made against them and then defend themselves. I have never seen any cases where the accused presents their defense first, and then the accuser (or prosecution) proceeds with their case.

This isn’t a trial, it’s Thunderdome. Only one rule - two man enter, one man leave. Everything else is negotiable.

but yea, the reason for the rule would still apply and makes sense.

If I’m her and I only get to go first, and there are no other witnesses, I’m answering a lot of questions with, “you’d need to bring in Mr. Judge, Ms. X, etc. and ask them” to show how unfair this “fact-finding hearing” is.

[Ravenman]

@Steophan

Since there’s already plenty of evidence that the party she described never happened, it’s unlikely that anyone who’s currently against Kavanaugh would change their mind. It’s been asked, several times, in this thread what Kavanaugh could theoretically do to clear his name, or what an investigation could theoretically turn up that would exculpate him, and those who have decided without evidence to believe that he’s guilty refuse to say what would do it.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21221463&postcount=2295

I wrote this morning what I thought could fully exonerate him. Did you:

1. Not see it?
2. Trying to make a “no true Scotsman” that I am not one of those who “decided without evidence to believe he’s guilty” so my response doesn’t count?
3. Willfully ignore it?

Or are you just going to say “yeahbut yeahbut yeahbut SOMEONE ELSE DID SOMETHING I DON’T LIKE!!”

[Omar_Little]

A full criminal investigation within the State of Maryland could occur at Ford’s request. They can take as long as they want. If charges are brought against Kavanaugh, even if he’s confirmed to SCOTUS, and he’s convicted, then impeachment charges against Kavanaugh and have him removed from SCOTUS.

There are remedies even if he is confirmed. This isn’t the last opportunity to have him off the court. Probably makes better sense to do it that way. The Senate Judiciary committee is hardly capable of conducting a criminal investigation.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

I agree that there are interests to be balanced here… but the least compelling interest is the one expressed by the Republican Majority that there is a need to wrap this up quickly. I see no need to draw this out for a long time, but there’s literally no compelling reason I can think of that a delay of another week, two, or three matters in any way whatsoever. We’re talking about a lifetime appointment. Odds are that he will have decades on the court: what’s a couple more days or weeks before that tenure starts?

I think the fact that you don’t want Kavanaugh anyway is probably part of your thinking - or at least mindset - here.

You lost me here.

Putting some (bogus) numbers on it to illustrate the logic.

Suppose in a criminal case you need 99% likelihood to convict and in a SC confirmation case you need 10% likelihood to reject. If you have some speculation that moves the needle, in one case from 99% to 97%, and in the other case from 11% to 9% then those are equivalent. In either case, it could change the “verdict” from “not enough uncertainty under the applicable standard” to “enough uncertainty under the applicable standard”. But the question is then whether the collateral damage from that additional evidence is worth the impact on the verdict.

The fact that one level of proof is 99% and the other is 10% doesn’t change the basic equation, which is about the value of the additional information in changing the verdict versus the collateral damage.

[HurricaneDitka]

@RTFirefly

I’ll add that that’s especially true when the point of this “mob” is not that the credible case disqualifies Kavanaugh by its existence, but rather that it’s sufficiently credible to require a thorough investigation before Kavanaugh’s nomination is voted on.

I don’t know what an investigation would turn up. But if it turns up solid evidence that Dr. Ford is a fabulist, both the Judiciary Committee and the American public should see that evidence.

At which point Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be a slam-dunk, much to my chagrin. But if that’s what the evidence turns out to be, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. But actively avoiding trying to find the facts, with a Supreme Court seat on the line, is a sin against this country.

How long, would you guess, that process might take?