In this case, your participation in the system perhaps leads you to conclude that it is really the best system, rather than a system that is working for the time being in the Netherlands but it's possible self-replacement of judges is not the main factor leading to the good judging you see (but solid tradition and general cultural norms), that it is an exception and not a good model for countries trying to reduce bias. — boethius

My original reply was to the fact that you can have a non-political process and avoid bias in the system. The court systems have their own vested interests in making sure people trust the system. Otherwise people don't use the courts any more. The most dangerous development to our court system at the moment is a retarded secretary of state who thinks it's a good idea to get rid of government funded lawyers for poor people and force them into legal insurance - except of course insurance companies are interested in settling more than winning their clients case even if they have a reasonable chance of winning. In the Netherlands the problem is more about access to the court.

Now, I fully agree that the US selection system isn't good. Having representatives select judges isn't a good democratic process. It can be improved (like going back to the 60 votes threshold or even higher as well US congress getting a say). However, I believe direct voting for judges, and judge terms, is the best system. As a citizen if you vote on who judges you (or at least supreme court), this immediately legitimizes the system and in the case of the US would be a counter-weight to "the club" of wealthy politicians appointing the judges from their class that they like and surprise, surprise those judges then protect the wealthy from accountability. It is also social learning experience to consider a judges record, and formulate an idea of who you think is a good judge. — boethius

I disagree with this. While I'd agree that voting for judges via a representative body could work if it isn't a two-party system, direct voting would be terrible. For instance, people always cry about judges being too lenient in the Netherlands and demand heftier penalties and longer sentences. And then this was tested several times. Ok, let's see what laymen would say about court cases and time and time again once laymen are aware of all the facts of a given case they would sentence people to shorter sentences than judges actually did. In other words, people think they know what they're talking about when they read about a court case in the newspaper and demand changes to the system but they really don't know because they don't have the necessary information. In fact, I would say the representatives don't really know either and tend to voice the same gut feelings their constituents have as they're not concerned with confirming the best candidate for the position but confirming the one that gets him or her reelected. So I think the first step of the professionals choosing appropriate candidates from their ranks is a further requirements to ensure independence and quality of the judges that get voted into office.

Opinion not philosophy - but pretty sure Kavanaugh is toast. Mukowski and collins do not want a SCOTUS that will endanger Roe - or support state driven restrictions on abortion. Unless the FBI comes back with Dr. Ford made the whole thing up, there is enough noise around him now they can vote no, and go to their constituents with a story it was not about abortion, but about his fitness for the job and take their chances. — Rank Amateur

I'm also of the opinion that Kavanaugh is gone ... but wouldn't be surprised if they push him through to show republicans "are strong".

However, the reason for withdrawing his nomination I don't think only tangentially anything to do with the points you bring up nor even the investigation per se. Rather, it comes down to polling.

Plenty of scandals that are completely outrageous have no effect on republican polling, indeed it often polls that doing something responsible would anger the republican base.

I think the main purpose of the investigation for Trump and the other powerful republicans, is time to measure sentiment on Fox news and their base. If enough of the republican base (in particular republican women) wavers on support for Kavanaugh, that's what I see as the main factor for withdrawing Kavanaugh.

Why this might matter in this case and didn't matter for Trump (enough to lose the election) I think is that Kavanaugh is more a relateable privileged douche whipping it out (allegedly) and raping / attempted raping (allegedly) "normal" women. Trumps scandals are mostly with port stars, gold digging groupies, miss America candidates, that the average conservative women can much more easily say "they're asking to get their pussies grabbed by being in the situation" and "it's part of being super rich".

We are not going to know for sure (100%) what happened, who did what to whom, who did or did not witness what, and so on. What we do know is that under pressure, Kavanaugh turned more than a bit vicious. Not a good thing for a potential SCOTUS justice to display. Not a good thing for an appellate judge to display, for that matter. — Bitter Crank

What is the appropriate way for an honorable man to respond to outright lies alleging attempted rape, assuming that's the case?

All this just makes me to think in a better light Trump's previous pick for SCOTUS. Don't remember such a show then.

What is the appropriate way for an honorable man to respond to outright lies alleging attempted rape, assuming that's the case? — Hanover

Not to loose your cool (or temper) just like Bret "Bart the beer-lover" Kavanaugh does.

There's an old Finnish saying: "That dog yelps, which (the) stick hits"

While I'd agree that voting for judges via a representative body could work if it isn't a two-party system, direct voting would be terrible. — Benkei

In Georgia and I believe a majority of the states, all judges are directly elected by the people. That includes both trial courts and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court of the state. Some states have hybrid systems, where the judge is initially appointed and then the people can vote either to retain the judge or get rid of him. In Georgia, judges are non-partisan, meaning they don't run as either party. Other states are entirely partisan, where a judge lists himself as Democrat or Republican, runs in the primary to win the candidacy for the party, and then runs in the general election. You may remember Roy Moore in Alabama running for Supreme Court.

What I can say about it in practice is that I've never seen a trial judge removed for political reasons. It's generally hard to vote out an incumbent for these positions due to their low profile nature. Typically the right ones get voted out for being abusive to lawyers and litigants. Ineptness rarely is even enough to get a judge tossed. Only lawyers can run as judges, so as long as you keep the local bar happy, you're probably going to be ok. You do see local lawyers get preferential treatment for sure, especially in more rural areas, but I'd suspect that'd be the case if they were appointed as well because you typically are kinder to those you know.

We had one election years ago where a liberal candidate ran against a conservative Supreme Court Justice but they lost. It's fairly uncommon for any judge to face such a challenge. The county judges have power over the cases before them, but no precedental power, so an argument could be made that they ought remain elected, but the appellate court judges be elected. At the moment, though, it works here, but that might not always be the case.

The American Bar Association has been consistently of the position that no judge have to stand for popular election, but it remains subject to debate. As we can see, no system is without serious flaws. I believe (and I don't feel like looking it up) that certain federal judges (like bankruptcy judges) receive 14 year terms, renewable by reappointment. That protects them from popular opinion, but it doesn't force them on the public for their lifetime if there's a need for change. That sort of hybrid system could be used by the states, but the Constitution requires lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court.

I'm in favor of judicial elevation by merit, where you get certified as a judge (as some don't know what they're doing), you start out as a magistrate and you move up the ranks to higher judgeships based upon reversal rates, reviews by the local bar, and whatever other objective criteria can be established. Of course, some would cry elitism or whatever, so there's no perfect way.

Not to loose your cool (or temper) just like Bret "Bart the beer-lover" Kavanaugh does.

There's an old Finnish saying: "That dog yelps, which (the) stick hits" — ssu

Yeah, well regardless of how the Finns might evaluate it, if someone accused me of a rape I didn't commit and it was damaging to my reputation and family, I might say something other than "I'd prefer the fine gentlewoman from Maryland to refrain from her misstatements as they are quite distracting." To be sure, I'd expect a volatile reaction from a legitimate accuser if she should be attacked as a liar and should her past be brought before the world to evaluate.

All this just makes me to think in a better light Trump's previous pick for SCOTUS. Don't remember such a show then. — ssu

Not as much as stake - conservative seat for conservative seat - and as you say he was a good choice. (probably means Trump had nothing to do with it )

What is the appropriate way for an honorable man to respond to outright lies alleging attempted rape, assuming that's the case? — Hanover

If we bring the acceptable behaviour bar down to the level of kindergartten, then yes being accused of stealing Billy's marbles WHEN YOU DIDN'T, for sure normal to get angry, start re-intepreting all your actions as that of a good little boy and also claiming it was a setup by the Clintons from the start.

However, if the SCOTUS bar is at that of reasonable, calm and collected adults, presumably characteristics the country wants Judges to have (but not written in stone anywhere), then the expected reaction of unfounded accusations is not to get angry, deflect, go on strange diatribes about a political hit job (without providing any actual evidence), claim a calendar proves what you actually did, truly bizarre questioning the questioner. The expected response would be simply defending one's character, claiming complete surety that the accusations are false, answering questions honestly (even if true answer lend credibility to the accusations). For instance, if I'm falsely accused of sexual assault in a bar that I frequent, republicans think it's totally normal, expected, excusable that I'd then lie about frequenting that bar. What am I going to do, place my self at the scene of the crime! No, it's not normal nor does it help my cause, since it's easily verified to be false and being found in this lie undermines my claim that I didn't do it (even if I didn't do it!!).

(Most) innocent people usually react to being a suspect in a crime by being overly honest, making exactly what they know very clear, presenting all the nuances of all their relevant actions and behaviour patterns, because they have true memories (of doing things other than the crime) that it's easy to volunteer the information. A person who did the crime (or suspects they easily could have done the crime in a drunken blackout) cannot by definition volunteer lot's of true information that supports their innocence: they must lie when questioned. The problem with lying is that it's difficult, what's a fully buyable lie? What's a lie that not too believable but can't be proven to be false? What are other true details that are incoherent (though still possible) with the main lie and it's better to lie about those too? What are true details that "don't look good" but are best to be true about (world is a strange place where weird things and coincidences do happen)? When is there no good lie and it's better to simply "not remember"? Making good lies is a difficult task (especially with impromptu questioning) and it's also difficult to deliver them well (as the emotion isn't real, and must be faked too).

What we saw in Kavanaugh's testimony is someone who's bad at lying. Bad choice of lies, bad explanations, bad delivery, sometimes deciding that stone-walling, deflecting and flipping the question on the senator is a good strategy. Maybe he's lying just because he's so afraid of the false accusations he (stupidly) thought lying would help him. Maybe he's lying because the accusations are true and he needs to lie and (unfortunate for him) he's terrible at it.

Kavanaugh's problem is he has no practice at lying but decided to do it anyway. Being a lawyer and then a judge doesn't require much if any lying at all. You represent other people, question other people, judge other people; and it's part of the job to do your best even if you suspect your client is guilty. It's not like being a politician where there are copious opportunities where lying can help and you can get really good at it if that's your thing.

Not to loose your cool (or temper) just like Bret "Bart the beer-lover" Kavanaugh does. — ssu

I think it is equally likely if he was calm and cool the narrative would be " see he did it, no one could take an allegation like that so calmly if he didn't do it "

I would put the odds of a favorable democratic response to anything Judge Kavanaugh said or did as slim and none.

Yeah, well regardless of how the Finns might evaluate it, if someone accused me of a rape I didn't commit and it was damaging to my reputation and family, I might say something other than "I'd prefer the fine gentlewoman from Maryland to refrain from her misstatements as they are quite distracting." To be sure, I'd expect a volatile reaction from a legitimate accuser if she should be attacked as a liar and should her past be brought before the world to evaluate. — Hanover

Perhaps in a similar situation Hanover the candidate for Supreme Court Justice would spring up from his chair and leap up to hit one of those slimy Democrat senators for damaging your repution and family and for the political hit job they have made? That would get judge Hanover quite a following, you know.

I think it is equally likely if he was calm and cool the narrative would be " see he did it, no one could take an allegation like that so calmly if he didn't do it " — Rank Amateur

You can deny false allegations and make a sincere, firm case that people will believe without loosing your temper. You can be credible and convincing without loosing it. As Boethius said, you do think that someone for the post of Supreme Court Justice would be able to respond in a different way.

And anyway, the display that we have gotten from Bart Kavanaugh simply shows that he is far more of a political hack than a lawyer. But that's obvious when you look at the guy's CV.

And anyway, the display that we have gotten from Bart Kavanaugh simply shows that he is far more of a political hack than a lawyer. But that's obvious when you look at the guy's CV. — ssu

maybe a fair point if you put more weight on the last few days, than the prior 20 years.

You can deny false allegations and make a sincere, firm case that people will believe without loosing your temper. You can be credible and convincing without loosing it. As Boethius said, you do think that someone for the post of Supreme Court Justice would be able to respond in a different way. — ssu

My point was, IMO, however he responded it would have been incorrect by those doing all they can to prevent his nomination.

My point was, IMO, however he responded it would have been incorrect by those doing all they can to prevent his nomination. — Rank Amateur

At least he got a hearing.

(And anyway, if it would be character assassination, far better would have been allegations of pedophilia. Like Pizzagate... assuming you can make it more credible.)

My point was, IMO, however he responded it would have been incorrect by those doing all they can to prevent his nomination. — Rank Amateur

This is simply not true. If he was calm and collected, people (even those against his nomination) would say he has the demeanor of a supreme court justice when the stakes are high.

It should also be noted that it's pretty easy to deny things that happened 30 years ago, the possibility of making a case (even if he's guilty) are slim.

So him simply calmly denying it, accepting that he did drink but never sexually assaulted anyone, going through the questions of the senators (assuming there really was no corroborating evidence to support assault claims that would arise, FBI or in the press). The conservatives could then say "see, this is supreme court material", and if he had calm and reasonable answers befitting a federal judge presenting themselves for a supreme court nomination there's little democrats could say (and since they can't block his nomination, republicans would be in an easy position to tell their base "sure, she got assaulted by someone, look how great a judge Kavanaugh and his masterful display of self-awareness and critical thinking in his hearing").

Since the whole thing happened quickly, my guess is that the republican senators thought their "female assistant" would undermine Fords credibility catching her in some sort of contradiction (as it happened decades ago it should be easy to create lot's of doubts and find a contradiction or two), that Kavanaugh would be "very judge like" (because he's literally a judge), that they would do the "republican outrage" to stoke their base (because that's what they do), and then quickly vote him through in a couple of days saying it was all liberal hogwash. Once he's on the bench, nothing anyone can do, news cycle resets.

It didn't go down that way so they accepted a limited one week FBI investigation to see how things play out in the media.

I agree with absolutely everything you said after : This is simply not true. The point I am making and you are missing, is the reality of the situation is meaningless. It is only the politics that matter, and the politics would have found a way to turn even that into the incorrect way to react.

Now to the part about " this is simply not true" - None of this point is true or false it is all opinion.

If the honorable and not guilty man (as opposed to an obviously innocent one) has been wrongly accused and can not shake the accusation, then he should gracefully withdraw from consideration. Why should he take himself out of consideration? Because the Court is much more important than Judge Kavanaugh--or any other nominee.

In the last year, a number of men have stepped aside (or been ejected) from their positions on the basis of allegations of "sexual misbehavior" that were not given a thorough hearing or examination. I am sure these guys were more than slightly angry, but they didn't have the opportunity to vent in front of a congressional committee on live TV.

The point I am making and you are missing, is the reality of the situation is meaningless. — Rank Amateur

I understand your point and I disagree. Had the republicans nominated some book-worm, squeaky clean goody-two-shoes, it would have been smooth sailing. And let's even imagine a false accusation (whether a "democratic hit job" or one of the millions of Americans just imagining things), and this much more boring judge would have made a much more boring and calm and reasoned response and basically end of story.

The situation is like it is because Kavanaugh is simply not what is expected of an important judge, and the illusion he is, is starting to implode even for Republicans (judge Judy has far more composure and sharp intellect ... far, far more ...). He's clearly a rash partisan from his record, as well as jumping to the conclusion that Ford's testimony must be a Clinton political hit job without evidence (jumping to conclusions that have no supporting evidence is exactly what a judge is hired to avoid doing).

It's not a situation that it's "all politics" and Kavanaugh would have been taken down regardless of his past or how he answers questions. The situation is that precisely because he's so over-the-top partisan, so loyal to the Republican party, rash in presuming everything is a liberal conspiracy, it's exactly for these qualities that Trump selected him. Making the most extreme partisan choice of the most irresponsible person (vis-a-vis caring about the constitution and forming unbiased opinions) has the affect of giving plenty of credible ammunition to Democrats (who understandably don't want an extreme partisan). R senators and the white house knew Kavanaugh's "beach week" past and that it's anyone guess what might come up. It's reported fairly powerful R senators argued strongly against Kavanaugh's nomination.

In my opinion, Trump selected Kavanaugh not only because he's the most partisan, the most extreme in defending the party, most likely to be loyal to Trump ... but also if a scandal does emerge it takes attention off of Trumps various scandals (and normalizes that "everyone has crazy scandals", which exactly what he said about everyone in the room in his most recent word-escapade). So, he gains something either way and another candidate can easily be rushed through last minute if need be (republicans control every branch and they can do what they want ... for now).

Edit: clarity

he was all of those things you wanted him to be until give or take 60 days ago when a women sent a letter to the committee saying he molested her as a teenager.

Everything that has happened after Sen. Feinstein received that letter has been about politics.

he was all of those things you wanted him to be until give or take 60 days ago when a women sent a letter to the committee saying he molested her as a teenager. — Rank Amateur

What are you talking about? Kavanaugh's record is extreme partisanship. That's not in dispute. He already got caught stealing democratic info off a gov server with a stolen democrat password. Because republicans control the process they can choose to ignore all the evidence Kavanaugh isn't fit for the office.

He was everything Republicans wanted, an extreme partisan, until a women sent a letter.

Both Democrats and Republicans are allowed to be members of the SCOTUS. And as amazing as that is, generally Republican Presidents nominate Republicans, and Democratic Presidents nominate Democrats. It is one of the really cool things about winning an election.

just a quick aside - I don't really have a dog in this race. i think Pres Trump is by far the worst human being to ever hold the office. My only real issue is, solely because of the importance of this seat. This process, and the delay of Garland, for the same reason, are a travesty. And none of this bonfire of the vanities is about any truth finding about Judge Kavanughs suitabilty - it is either pushing through, or delaying, this nomination passed the midterms depending on what side of the aisle you are on.

The republicans are committed to Kavanaugh now because any other nominee is obviously passed the midterm
and the Democrats are doing absolutely everything they can do push this passed the midterm.

This is about abortion and the votes it can get, and the votes it can lose -

Perhaps in a similar situation Hanover the candidate for Supreme Court Justice would spring up from his chair and leap up to hit one of those slimy Democrat senators for damaging your repution and family and for the political hit job they have made? That would get judge Hanover quite a following, you know — ssu

Is this responsive to something?

If the honorable and not guilty man (as opposed to an obviously innocent one) has been wrongly accused and can not shake the accusation, then he should gracefully withdraw from consideration. Why should he take himself out of consideration? Because the Court is much more important than Judge Kavanaugh--or any other nominee.

In the last year, a number of men have stepped aside (or been ejected) from their positions on the basis of allegations of "sexual misbehavior" that were not given a thorough hearing or examination. I am sure these guys were more than slightly angry, but they didn't have the opportunity to vent in front of a congressional committee on live TV. — Bitter Crank

This is a bit absurd isn't it? If you are accused and you cannot convince others of the falsity of the accusation, you should accept punishment under the idea that the system is holier than the individual? There is nothing honorable about a person who fails to defend himself and fight and there is nothing honorable about a system that honors such conduct.

So long as I can levy a charge that cannot be disproved, I can control the world under your system. Whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty. Do you really adhere to such a principle? Even if you do, should you be charged with a crime you did not commit, I'd defend you over your objection, even if meant bringing great dishonor to the patrol officer on the street all the way to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Would you expect less?

Both Democrats and Republicans are allowed to be members of the SCOTUS. And as amazing as that is, generally Republican Presidents nominate Republicans, and Democratic Presidents nominate Democrats. It is one of the really cool things about winning an election. — Rank Amateur

When did I say that a republican can't be a judge? I was explaining why it's reasonable for democrats to not vote for Kavanaugh confirmation even if the FBI completely exonerated Kavanaugh proving Ford any all other accusers are frauds, which was a response to your claim of duplicity on the part of Democrats.

Now, should the system be that with 51% of senators representing less than 51% of people can appoint a supreme justice? That's another question.

Likewise, I qualified "presumably" about the the people wanting unbiased and non-partisan judges (and a democrat or a republican judge can still strive for fair and non-partisan rulings, which would then be reflected in their record and a good basis for getting the support of 60 or maybe more senators). There's nothing forcing people to want unbiased judges, Americans are free to want judges based on loyalty to party above country and even common sense if Americans want.

Nevertheless, thanks for advising me to win an election. I'm not an American, nor ever lived in America. I won't reap the direct affects of republican propaganda (largely with democrats enabling the whole thing) gaslighting America's ability to make even simple arguments. But I do care about Americans and everyone outside America affected by the world's super power, so I take interest from time to time. For myself personally, I choose to live in the place on the planet I believe least affected by this interesting time in history.

Is this responsive to something? — Hanover

This.

if someone accused me of a rape I didn't commit and it was damaging to my reputation and family, I might say something other than "I'd prefer the fine gentlewoman from Maryland to refrain from her misstatements as they are quite distracting.To be sure, I'd expect a volatile reaction from a legitimate accuser if she should be attacked as a liar and should her past be brought before the world to evaluate. — Hanover

Me and others have explained that you can make convincing, credible denial calmly.

So what does Bart Kavanaugh do? He whines about being a victim of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled by the anger of president Trump and the 2016 elections" and a "revenge on behalf of the Clintons"? Is that a response of a supreme court judge? Nope. It's the response of a political hack that is basically licking the ass of Trump so that Trump wouldn't give up on him and find another candidate.

Cases are fought all the way up to the Supreme Court, but a candidate's appointment to the court isn't "a case". Kavanaugh is not being tried, he's being interviewed for a (very important) job. He isn't entitled to the job; this isn't Civil Service. He's either qualified or not, in the probably flawed judgement of the Senate. You or I may not trust the Senate, but that's the way the system works. Lots of people are going to be displeased no matter what decision is made by the Senate.

Kavanaugh isn't the first person to be stuck by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Often there is nothing one can do about the piercing except suck it up. Take Gore vs. Bush: Al Gore was devastated by the denouement of the election. There was no higher court to which he could appeal; he had to go home and deal with it as best he could. He did, and survived.

Can you explain why the Republicans were resistant to an extended investigation? I'm a little confused about that. Is it that they thought that the longer this goes on, the less likely it is he'll be confirmed?

I'm going to set aside political motivation. I see two legitimate reasons: 1) the belief that no relevant new evidence existed. 2) further enquiry was a rabbit hole - one lead would lead to more, but none could ever support or refute the charge.

He whines about being a victim of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit, — ssu

I found his defense powerful and effective and the responses of his opponents more whining about the unfairness of not being able to pick the candidate of their choice. The institution that has been destroyed is not the Supreme Court, but the Senate for exploring the high school behavior of a 50+ year old man.

The purpose of the investigating is clearly only to delay.

lol what a fucking joke Hanover, jesus christ