Trump's nomination, and a fortiori, his presidential win, emboldened and legitimized far-right forces. A women/PoC president would be the right step in de-legitimizing them.

Killing kills. Passion is what kills. — Marchesk

Don't forget apathy

Sarah Palin?

Oh is Palin a democrat?

My point is that ideological/political context matters greatly here.

No, she's a moronic republican who makes Trump sound erudite.

How about Elizabeth Warren, Senator, D - Massachusetts? I'm pretty sure she's available for nomination in 2020 - she's been running spots on the internet where she talks about policy. She's more like Sanders, less like Clinton (in policy).

As I said in the last page, on the scale of who would likely be nominated and win, while being closest to my Leftist ideology, I would prefer Warren

Last time I checked a judge should get the better of his emotions and display detached rationality. It is a job interview afterall. Whether or not Kavanaugh actually did something, he acted like a child, completely non justicial, rife with chatacter attacks on the woman and implicit threats. I wonder when decent republican senators will stop this outrageous freak show which is US politics right now.

The pundits I watched suggested that he was coached to be emotional and that he just took it too far. Their reasoning was that he was calm when originally interviewed by the committee about allegations, and that his target audience, the swing senators, needed to think of him as a victim.

As it is, he looked very partisan.

The converse of installing an alleged attempted rapist to the supreme court would be not installing an alleged attempted rapist to the supreme court. Which would be nice for all parties involved, I imagine. — StreetlightX

No, that's so very wrong. We in the Pervert Party have already taken over the White House, and now we are moving on the Supreme Court. And of course it's been proven that we also occupy high positions throughout the corporate world, particularly in important opinion shaping media empires.

Sure, we've taken our losses, it was a shame to see Cosby go down, but these things happen in revolutions and we will NOT be deterred by any setback.

Once our take over is complete, all of us here will be able to publicly shake our peckers in the faces of all those sanctimonious politically correct moral superiority phonies who infect threads such as this one, and nobody will be able to stop us.

You're welcome! Long live the Pervert Party!

Here's a curiosity. Because it's an all male committee, you get a female, an expert in prosecuting sex crimes to interview the victim. Just the person to get to the truth. But then you don't allow her to question the suspect. It's almost as if the woman is the suspect from the beginning.

This being the justice committee, you might think that they would agree about the suitability of such an expert to ask the right questions, but the partisanship (that is to say the injustice) is so entrenched that this woman is seen as herself partisan so that if she questions the woman on behalf of one side, she cannot question the man on behalf of the other.

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it.

Here's a curiosity. — unenlightened

Is it really curious though? How many participants in this thread seek the truth rather than a chance to express their pre-manufactured opinions in the pithiest way possible?

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it. — unenlightened

Maybe in a few decades the machines will be ready for us to hand such matters over to them. I can't remember which book it was, but I'm thinking off quote about how certain decisions are too important for humans to be trusted with, like running a country or interpreting law.

How many participants in this thread seek the truth rather than a chance to express their pre-manufactured opinions in the pithiest way possible? — frank

I don't think these are alternatives. I'm not sure about others, but I tend to think my opinions are true, and when I stop thinking they are, I change them. This is surely how a committee or a thread should function, that we express our opinions and test them against each other, being open to persuasion. The question is whether one is open to persuasion, not whether one has an opinion.

Robocop is not my utopia.

The question is whether one is open to persuasion, not whether one has an opinion. — unenlightened

What persuades me most is a mixture of facts and my own poor logic. I don't trust your genius.

But my method, which may just be a product of temperament, requires that i spend a certain amount of time just not knowing: waiting for a scenario to ring true.

I think the adverse effect of strong opinions on my process is obvious.

Anyway how does your temperament work?

How many participants in this thread seek the truth rather than a chance to express their pre-manufactured opinions in the pithiest way possible? — frank

Yea!! :up:

The question is whether one is open to persuasion, not whether one has an opinion. — unenlightened

Perhaps Frank's point was that we have little evidence in this thread that anyone is open to persuasion. And so it is in the Congress as well. Because we're all human beings. Politicians are a mirror of the public, and we don't like what the mirror reveals, so we yell at the mirror.

There is no Utopia. But there's better and worse, and tradeoffs. We might decide as a species at some point that humans just can't be trusted with power once we have another option. Current democracies are the best we can come up with so far. It's telling that we call it the least worst form of government.

Eliezer Yudkowsky calls democracies vote-maximizing systems, which isn't what was intended, but it's what ends up happening.

The problem I have with US democracy is that only two parties matter, the Electoral College is outdated but will take a constitutional amendment to remove, which senators from the lower population states will never approve, large amounts of money are spent on campaigns, both parties are heavily influenced by big business, gerrymandering is a thing, and Supreme Court nominations are hugely political because everyone is worried about how the nominee will swing the court on a few key issues.

Also, debate between the two parties that matter has turned into a feces throwing contest presented in terms of good versus evil. Granted, the Republicans are more to blame for the debate degrading so much, particularly their media apparatus. But it has proved to be a working strategy, as was obstructing the Obama administration, so we can look forward to a downward spiral of that from both parties in the future.

In the same way the democrats would not have held onto the information until the last second had they actually wanted the truth. — yatagarasu

It is amazing how the virtue of Senator Feinstein is being used against her cause. Let us review the facts:
1. After consulting with her friends, Dr. Ford herself anonymously tipped the Washington Post and sent her letter before Kavanaugh was selected -- showing it was not a general attack on any nominee, but an attempt to avoid the selection of such a flawed candidate.
2.Senator Feinstein was asked to hold Dr. Ford's Letter in confidence. Despite the fact that it would have been to her party's political advantage, she did so. There is no evidence that Doc Ford's letter was ever leaked. Thus, Sentator Feinstein acted with virtue.
3. Reporters got wind of the story late (possibly from a friend of Dr. Ford) and it was only as a result of the news accounts and the press showing up in her classroom, that Dr. Ford finally agreed to make her name known and allow her letter to be released.
Thus, there is no factual basis for the late hit conspiracy theory.

If it passes midterms there is a 100% chance he isn't confirmed because the republicans will not have enough votes to get him there. — yatagarasu

You seem not to understand the American electoral system.
1. The last time I looked, the Republicans had a 70% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
2. Even if they lost control of the Senate, the new Senate would not begin until January of 2019.
3. After the elections, there would be a lame duck session of congress giving the Republicans also two months to work their will.

What other reason would you hold it? — yatagarasu

1. As i explained above, there is no evidence that the Democrats leaked Ford's letter. So your premise is questionable at best.
2. As I also explained above, the motivation you offer makes no sense as the Republicans will maintain the majority in the senate until the end of 2018.
3. Could it not be that some Senators take their constitutional duty to advise and consent seriously and want to have the best available information?

There are still members of congress willing to work across the aisles. Sadly, Senator Flake was forced to retire by his party because he has broken discipline in the past.

In the same way the democrats would not have held onto the information until the last second had they actually wanted the truth.
— yatagarasu

It is amazing how the virtue of Senator Feinstein is being used against her cause. Let us review the facts:
1. After consulting with her friends, Dr. Ford herself anonymously tipped the Washington Post and sent her letter before Kavanaugh was selected -- showing it was not a general attack on any nominee, but an attempt to avoid the selection of such a flawed candidate.
2.Senator Feinstein was asked to hold Dr. Ford's Letter in confidence. Despite the fact that it would have been to her party's political advantage, she did so. There is no evidence that Doc Ford's letter was ever leaked. Thus, Sentator Feinstein acted with virtue.
3. Reporters got wind of the story late (possibly from a friend of Dr. Ford) and it was only as a result of the news accounts and the press showing up in her classroom, that Dr. Ford finally agreed to make her name known and allow her letter to be released.
Thus, there is no factual basis for the late hit conspiracy theory. — Dfpolis

There is nothing I know of that would have prevented sen feinstein from informing the committee and immediately using the existing investigating ability of the committee to conduct a confidential investigation of these charges 45 plus days ago when she received the letter. Any belief that holding that letter was anything other than to use it politically is naive.

There is nothing I know of that would have prevented sen feinstein from informing the committee and immediately using the existing investigating ability of the committee to conduct a confidential investigation of these charges 45 plus days ago when she received the letter. — Rank Amateur

Nothing except Senator Feinstein's honor and virtue in following the request of Doc. Ford that her name not be disclosed. In order to have an investigation, the investigators would have to know who was leveling the charges.

Do you have some means of magically investigating the matter without knowing the name of the accuser?

the accusation could have, and should have been investigated confidentiality. it is completely possible to have investigated this allegation and keep dr fords name out of the press.

the accusation could have, and should have been investigated confidentiality. it is completely possible to have investigated this allegation and keep dr fords name out of the press. — Rank Amateur

Yes, if Senator Feinstein put partisan advantage above honor, she could have violated Doctor Ford's request that her name not be used. Remember, the request was not that her name be kept "out of the press," it was that it not be used at all. While many may have violated Doctor Ford's confidence, Senator Feinstein chose not to. I find both their actions commendable.

The question comes down to credibility. As Senator Blumenthal pointed out, there is a Common Law principle:Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything). Not only has Judge Kavanaugh lied in previous confirmation hearings, he did so again in his most recent testimony. A recent article, "The Four Big Contradictions in Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate Testimony" (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-four-big-contradictions-in-brett-kavanaughs-senate-testimony/) documents four of his most recent falsehoods.

Independently of judicial philosophy, man who lies with such frequency and facility, even when given opportunities to correct himself, has no place as a judge on any court, let alone the highest court in the land.

Perhaps Frank's point was that we have little evidence in this thread that anyone is open to persuasion. — Jake

Perhaps it was his point, and perhaps it's true. I wonder what you or he would count as evidence? One could obviously count anyone admitting they were wrong, or visibly changing their opinion, but although I am both right in my opinion and cogent in my exposition, and you are open to persuasion, yet you may not be persuaded. Still, if you engage and respond, if you at least offer a counter to points that are raised, that would count for me. Whereas if you ignore different opinions or respond with diversions or insults, that would be evidence against open-mindedness. I think I've spotted some of each in this thread, but not so much of the former in the committee.

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it. — unenlightened

I am sorry, but I see no case for equal blame here. I see one side asking for a full and impartial investigation and a release of all relevant documents, and the other hiding documents and (before Senator Flake's courage) refusing to allow an impartial investigation by the agency most experienced in these matters. So, if you have a case for equal blame, lay it out. If not, do not make such claims.

I am sorry, but I see no case for equal blame here. — Dfpolis

You may well be right on that score. I'm not really competent to judge the background behaviour, only the couple of days of hearing I have followed. It does seem to me though that it would have been worthwhile having the sex crime prosecutor question Kavanaugh, since he was alleged to be a perpetrator, and it was open to anyone on the committee to allow that. That she was brought in and not used in this even handed way, seems to indicate that either she was partisan, or she was assumed to be partisan. If she wasn't partisan, but was being used by the Republicans as a fig-leaf, it would have been sensible and possibly very effective for the Democrats to use her to interview Kavanaugh. If she was partisan, then the whole thing was a charade, what we totalitarians call a 'show trial', in which everyone who participated is to blame, except Ford, the political prisoner.

In other words, I'm doing my best to be charitable to 'the other side', while really not thinking much of what has gone on.

hat she was brought in and not used in this even handed way, seems to indicate that either she was partisan, or she was assumed to be partisan. — unenlightened

Yes, she was a partisan hired by the Republicans on the committee to avoid the appearance of a panel composed only of male Senators trying to undercut the credibility a female victim. By denying her request for an investigation before her testimony and by refusing to subpoena, or even to allow, any other witnesses, the Republicans hoped to pit an inexperienced housewife against a trained lawyer -- effectively having a show trial. That plan was ruined when she turned out to be very credible, and Kavanaugh very evasive.