which is complete bullshit if you're not willing to look into the relevant facts. It wasn't to me about whether he sexually assaulted Ford but the obvious lies about boofing and the devil's triangle. As well as the possible (and likely) lies about the illegally obtained information from democratic servers that he was aware of. So yeah, perjury for anyone without a horse in that farcical race.

Again, you're talking about possible lies. Stick to your principles until it gets difficult. Right.

Nothing possible about it. Just because it isn't in an FBI report doesn't mean it's a clear lie. Both his body language and speech mannerism as well as the numerous references existing to devil's triangle and boofing before his testimony are proof enough. It isn't a jail sentence just a promotion.

:meh:

When judges are not primarily appointed to and don't act to serve justice or a constitution, but to deliver for political ideologies, it's an obvious weak point in a democracy. And when, in addition, crimes they allegedly commit, such as perjury, are investigated or not investigated, or are considered important or unimportant for purely partisan reasons, there's very little confidence to be had in the institutions they are purportedly an integral part of.

That goes for Presidents too. If Clinton was found to have perjured himself, he should have been removed from office (as Republicans insisted). If Kavanaugh perjured, he should not be allowed to be a judge at any level. If you can't establish some reasonable standard of ethical requirements for political or judicial appointees that applies to both sides then you don't have the basics of a properly functioning democracy in place.

The same goes for credible allegations of misconduct. There needs to be an objective and fair process that protects both the accuser and the accused, and a comprehensive and independent investigation should be a part of that along with a suspension of judgement (especially among politicians) until that's completed.

So, Republicans "win" this partisan fight. Democrats may "win" the next one. But as a country, America and its institutions continue to lose. That's not something anybody should be celebrating.

When it comes to my daughter, I wouldn't wait for proof, and I wouldn't be concerned about the rights of the accused, I simply wouldn't leave her in the hands of someone under a cloud of accusations. I would apply a precautionary principle.

But justice - the legal system, who cares about that, who cares if that gets raped?

Damn, you too?

When did you folks degrade to a mob mentality? Or maybe you were always there. I just expected more.

Which mob is that? You have heard of a precautionary principle, right? It applies in all sorts of situations, but particularly in matters of the protection of the vulnerable. If Kavanaugh was a schoolteacher, I would expect him to be suspended, and if he wasn't, my children would not go to that school. But you are happy to send your children to his court?

You think Kavanaugh might get drunk and try to rape a constitutional lawyer?

Yes, he might. I wouldn't want my daughter working for him.

But more to the point, I wouldn't want my daughter tried by him or have his decision rule her, any more than I would want her in his classroom. What is your non-mob mentality?

But more to the point, I wouldn't want my daughter tried by him or have his decision rule her, any more than I would want her in his classroom. What is your non-mob mentality? — unenlightened

If that's more to the point, then your point is not about a precautionary suspension.

It's that you believe that having demonstrated a lack of respect for females, he should have no jurisdiction over them. Is that correct?

If Kavanaugh was a schoolteacher, I would expect him to be suspended, and if he wasn't, my children would not go to that school. But you are happy to send your children to his court? — unenlightened

I'd have no problem trusting my kids when young with him. Regardless, the guilty "if I would harbor concerns with them tending my daughter" standard is an irrational standard. It justifies finding guilt based upon hunches and feelings of creepiness.

You can't fire a school teacher for 17 year old misdeeds by the way. They have actual legal rights to their job. The majority of the testimony wouldn't be allowed at the teacher's hearing, if it even got to the there being a hearing.

Do you propose delving into the ancient past of every school teacher to arm up every parent who might one say have a run in with the teacher?

Orrin Hatch disagrees with you. He said if Kavanaugh did it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

My post didn't actually say that. I said I'd allow him to be a schoolteacher even if he did it.

But others here opposed to him have said they'd have allowed him to be a Justice even if he did it, but were only opposed because he lied.

I guess we ought reverse all laws excluding the consideration of juvenile history in adult court. — Hanover

The proposition that childhood behaviour is relevant to the judgement of an adult's character in no way implies that juvenile behaviour ought to be considered as relevant to an adult on trial for one's actions. The adult goes to court on trial for one's adult actions not for one's character.

I'd have no problem trusting my kids when young with him. Regardless, the guilty "if I would harbor concerns with them tending my daughter" standard is an irrational standard. It justifies finding guilt based upon hunches and feelings of creepiness. — Hanover

No it doesn't. I justifies erring on the side of caution and protection when there is a credible accusation. I'm not basing this on his ugly face and sneering mouth, but on credible sworn accusation, and other credible similar accusations supported by his own writing at and around the time.

Do you propose delving into the ancient past of every school teacher to arm up every parent who might one say have a run in with the teacher? — Hanover

Yes. Every person in a position of trust with a vulnerable person should have a background check, and every such person credibly accused of a sexual crime at any time should be suspended until thoroughly investigated.

My post didn't actually say that. I said I'd allow him to be a schoolteacher even if he did it.

But others here opposed to him have said they'd have allowed him to be a Justice even if he did it, but were only opposed because he lied. — Hanover

You have implied multiple times that even if he did it, his juvenule status on the occasion makes it ok.

So do you think he did it?

The proposition that childhood behaviour is relevant to the judgement of an adult's character in no way implies that juvenile behaviour ought to be considered as relevant to an adult on trial for one's actions. The adult goes to court on trial for one's adult actions not for one's character. — Metaphysician Undercover

And why this double standard? We should assume that the purpose of a criminal investigation, trial, and sentence is the betterment of society. If we've concluded that one's character from juvenile bad acts is grounds for the disenfranchisement from certain highly trusted privileges of society (and the ones currently enumerated are Supreme Court Justice and schoolteachers), why block our courts from considering that in criminal matters. I just want a safe, clean society for myself and children, and I'm having difficulty understanding why our laws only allow us to ferret out certain types of dangerous scoundrels. If what I did in high school makes me a now 52 year old unfit to serve as baseball coach, soccer coach, cub scout leader (all of which I did in years past), then I should be excluded. Let's have some process to ferret out evil and mark the demons among us so that we're not subjected to these people. I was hoping our criminal justice system would do that, but it's apparently ineffective for that purpose.

I was hoping our criminal justice system would do that, but it's apparently ineffective for that purpose. — Hanover

Would you just stop?

I don't think he did it, if by "think" you mean there's sufficient proof he did it. The age of the accusations make the memories impossible to trust and the lack of corroboration (by other witnesses or physical evidence) make the claims unsupported. The whole looking into the eyes of the accused and the accuser and having been able to divine the truth (which many here have suggested they're able to to) is just so much reading tea leaves.

Yes. Every person in a position of trust with a vulnerable person should have a background check, and every such person credibly accused of a sexual crime at any time should be suspended until thoroughly investigated. — unenlightened

What questions do you propose be on the local Sunday school teacher's application? Should it ask detailed questions about juvenile acts 35 years prior, even if there were never an accusation of it?

don't think he did it, if by "think" you mean there's sufficient proof he did it. — Hanover

I was asking what you believe.

Anyway, you're out of step with seasoned Republican senators on the issue of ignoring guilt because his record might have been expunged if he'd been found guilty at the time. That's a big "might have" btw.

Would you just stop? — frank

Everyone here is acting like rights afforded criminals in criminal court are just some strange oddity inserted in antiquity for some purpose now lost in time. Those rules are there to assure fairness and a trusted result, and it makes as much sense to use them in criminal court as it does in any other proceeding where the object is the discovery of truth.

What right are you talking about? The right to have your juvenile record expunged? The right to have Orrin Hatch ignore the fact that you attempted rape?

This forum. No one can maintain coherence for more than two posts.

What questions do you propose be on the local Sunday school teacher's application? Should it ask detailed questions about juvenile acts 35 years prior, even if there were never an accusation of it? — Hanover

When I was a night porter for a hotel for the disabled, I had a police background check, because I would be alone with vulnerable adults. I imagine it was a fairly cursory record search. I also imagine that if there were three separate complaints of sexual offences on record, I would not have got the job. I think the checks for a supreme court justice should probably be at least as extensive as that.

As it happens, one of the waiters was accused of sexual assault (not at the hotel) . He was immediately suspended from his job, arrested and interviewed under caution. And all this before he was convicted of anything.

Funnily enough, I didn't notice conservatives pulling out the 'innocent until proven guilty', 'let's pretend nothing happened', card wrt Harvey Weinstein. Then again, he was a liberal. The pretence of objectivity here is tiresome.

(And before I get strawmanned I don't think the cases are the same in detail, but the principle is.)

But others here opposed to him have said they'd have allowed him to be a Justice even if he did it, but were only opposed because he lied. — Hanover

I oppose him because his lies are obvious and go to his character as he is now. If he has done it I think the intervening period would be long enough to demonstrate he isn't that person anymore. It would be reason to investigate that nothing similar happened when he was older.

And why this double standard? — Hanover

I don't see any double standard. I see two distinct types of judgement with two distinct sets of criteria. A criminal trial is set to determine whether an individual committed a criminal act, and if so, the criminal extent of that act. A judgement of an individual's character is carried out for completely different purposes, and therefore proceeds form different premises of what constitutes evidence.

why block our courts from considering that in criminal matters. — Hanover

Actually, if such evidence were permissible in criminal matters the supply of evidence would be nearly never ending, the trial would be nearly never ending, and the courts would actually be blocked. So you have the idea of "block our courts" inverted.

Let's have some process to ferret out evil and mark the demons among us so that we're not subjected to these people. I was hoping our criminal justice system would do that, but it's apparently ineffective for that purpose. — Hanover

Sorry to shatter your illusion, but the criminal justice system is really set up to bring justice to bear on those who have committed crimes. The burden of preventing individuals from proceeding into criminal activity is placed on other social structures. So if you want a safe society for your family you should consider the adequacy of these other social structures rather than the adequacy of the criminal justice system.