I think the juxtaposition of free will and determinism is false and should be forgotten. Determinism means that for a given state at a certain time at the next moment only one possible new state can come about. Indeterminism would mean different new states can come about and we would not know beforehand what that state will be.

That certain processes are understood as epistomologically indeterminate (e.g. QM) does not mean reality is indeterministic. It is only proof that the complexity of reality is such that we can only predict it by approximation in matters of probability. This has opened the door that reality could be indeterministic.

Now, I believe reality is deterministic but that's neither here nor there with regard to free will.

Free will has to be a deterministic process or it wouldn't be free will. If it weren't deterministic I wouldn't be making an informed choice when exercising my free will. If you offer me vanilla or chocolate icecream, I will choose the one I have a preference for. That preference is a result of my previous experience and it's not possible that the outcome could be equally chocolate or vanilla and decided by an ontologically random process an infinitesmal moment before my decision. It's going to be one or the other and it is one or the other based on pre-determined input that can result in only one choice.

So long as people can't wrap their head around the idea that saying "indeterminism is necessary for free will to exist", really means that everything they decide is totally random as a result, we'll continue to have these discussions.

So, could a democratic senate majority request an FBI investigation after his confirmation and impeach him if it turns out he lied to the senate during these hearings?

It seems the FBI was told to look for corroborating evidence for sexual assault. It should've been "did he give false testimony before the senate". A sham. I still don't get why they simply won't get a less controversial candidate.

If I'd be innocent I'd challenge them to find proof, knowing there is none. I could do so angrily and vocally but I wouldn't be so stupid to challenge lies with my own easily refutable lies.

If I were passed up on a promotion based upon false allegations of sexual impropriety in the workplace, for example, that would be an HR issue that I would vigorously address. In Georgia, the law presumes damage when slander relates to one's profession. — Hanover

I don't see an answer. Missing a promotion or not getting a job you want, isn't punishment, regardless of the underlying reasons and causes.

EDIT: Death threats the type of which both Kavanaugh and Ford have received is and totally unwarranted.

This is nice too: Let's not try to fight global warming because it's hopeless

On a positive note, at least the Trump administration admits to global warming... :roll:

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? — Hanover

When's the last time you complained to your employer that being passed up for a promotion was punishment? Are all the other capable judges passed up for this position also punished? SCOTUS has a special position in society where we can and should expect exemplary behaviour because the trust in the judiciary ought to be more important than a single person's career path or indeed partisanship which underlies his ridiculous nomination in the first place.

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.

Meanwhile on the other side of the fence: Breitbart comments

Dr Fraud perjured herself according to them...

Sorry missed that.

IMO Judge Kavanaugh played this completely wrong. He should have immediately acknowledged that he lead the frat boy life, drank too much as a teenager and in college, said and did some juvenile stuff that he is not proud of now. But completely deny the sexual attack - and make people weigh his teenage - college years versus all the years thereafter. — Rank Amateur

Yeah, he could've even gotten away with saying: I don't recall it happening but if it did happen I sincerely apologise to Dr. Ford. Such behaviour was inexcusable but unfortunately many teenagers and young adults make these sort of mistakes. Like many boys at that age I drank too much and as such was less capable in making correct moral choices. I can assure you that as I grew up, I learned what an appropriate amount of beer was and what the appropriate way is to treat women. As regrettable as my actions were as a boy I don't think they should have any bearing on my role as a judge and on the person that I am today.

Or something like that.

So why didn't he? Doesn't he want the job? Is this an example of someone fighting like a cornered rat because there really is something to discover in his teenage years?

As a lawyer in the Netherlands, your opinion that the system works great maybe an example of the exact systemic bias in this sort of system that I'm referring too. But let's ignore this. — boethius

Political bias is grounds for substition in Dutch courts, whereas the political bias of a US judge is a given nowadays based on which president confirmed his position. The proof is in the pudding as to what extent politics creeps into these systems and the political drive surrounding Roe vs. Wade and Citizens United. It's quite clear from the current spectacle and the Garland no-show which system is embattled by corruption and it isn't the Dutch one.

Perhaps a better presentation of my point is, what you would advise for improving the US system (or an even more corrupt system for that matter): more or less democracy in selecting judges — boethius

Given the system you're with you can try the following:

a) increase the number of parties that can be elected to congress and senate by amending or doing away with the district system (fat chance); it's unlikely you'll get qualified majorities on barring persons for political reasons;
b) have the ABA and judges submit candidates to the Senate instead of the President; professionals tend to be concerned with professionalism;

Except they need Republicans to vote against as well so the call for the FBI would then be to have them unearth necessary details that would convince the Republicans Kavanaugh is unfit for the office. It doesn't seem meaningless at all to me.

Btw, how did Lindsey Graham ever get elected? He has the charisma of a wet towel.

this is a red herring. Ford's testimony has already been considered believable enough to pursue further investigation into whether Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied to senators, which seems 100% likely considering his answers to what entailed boofing and a devil's triangle. In fact, it's obvious from his body language and speech patterns when you compare the answers to those questions and the one on "ralphing". All the corroborating evidence was provided by himself already.

I'm Dutch and a lawyer and I'm telling you that it's not a political process. The sitting judges submit a list of 6 candidates. The house proposes 3 from those 6, including the first person nominated. The executive appoints the first one nominated. There's something called tradition which has its own rules. Political parties tend to raise concerns, if any, when the commission makes its initial list of 6, which is rare but has happened. Those issues aren't political though as you're not going to get a majority for it (15 parties in parliament) and the last time a nominee was scrapped was because of him having a political opinion on a court case. So yeah, pretty much independent and devoid of politics.

In other words, it's a political process that selects judges. — boethius

It isn't a political process. No politicians involved. The executive branch appoints, the selection committee is made up by the judiciary and legal professionals. No legislative representatives involved.

It's a nice thought that an independent court could reign in a corrupt government, but it's actually more likely, in my view, that an independent justice system is corrupted (bribery, blackmail, or then the slow work of filtering out the non-wealthy from going to top law schools, becoming top lawyers and judges in the first place etc.). — boethius

There's a lot of countries out there with an independent justice system that have no problem keeping corruption out of their system, so this doesn't hold true. In fact, from a Dutch perspective, the political identity of judges is in a sense corrupting the practice of applying the law when their political beliefs influence their method of interpretation. "Political views" is not an acceptable interpretative technique when applying the law.

Justice is fundamentally a political thing, and so voting for key positions, like Surpeme justices, is in my opinion the best option. Which is the current system just indirectly voting for the president and then senators.

Yes and no. On the one hand when writing laws, to the extent they are concerned with justice, the prerogative on prescribing what justice is, is with the Parliament and therefore a political thing. Where it comes to the interpretation of laws, however, justice,equity and fairness, ought to be the goal of any interpretation. In other words, where different interpretative techniques are possible a judge should pursue the one leading to the most just result as informed by tradition and the dictates of public consciousness.

I flagged you for stupidity and being an uncaring asshole. I hope you get banned.

@Bitter Crank Have a lot more political parties in the senate so you need a coalition to have someone confirmed. Problem solved. Also this : Corruption is legal

His hardcore base is presumably a fraction of Americans so if it factors in that strongly I'm not understanding the power dynamics of US politics. An angry Trump is like any other day, right? His anger is like the wind, it blows in a different direction each day so you just stay inside for a day and then he'll be complaining about Mueller again or the media.

As to credibility of Brett, I decided to look at Brett's wife through his hearing. It's interesting at times but obviously not conclusive. Another thing I noticed is when he's asked on FOX News whether he ever met Blasey Ford; he doesn't attempt to remember or recollect if he does but immediately replies that he may have met her but implies that he doesn't know her. He never looks away from the interviewer, he's totally concentrated on his message which contain obvious lies. I find that odd and unnatural behaviour. Now compare this with how his wife talks in the same interview, she smiles, looks away at times and basically isn't a robot. This is what strikes me about Brett most of his replies and answers, they're not recollections but studied and prepared replies.

That said, I believe his story about the calendars, it's clearly confirmed by his wife's reaction and recollection of his dad are real and one of the few moments he really remembers (and we know what he looks like when he's recalling events). It's one of the few moments he's a human being. In sum, Blasey Ford offered testimony, Brett mostly offered a prepared speech that wasn't anything like testimony.

In total, I suspect Brett was a stupid and often drunk teenager who definitely groped and was too aggressive to women at that age. The Blasey story and the dick-in-the-face with Ramirez seem like the kind of stupid shit "normal" boys could get into, especially as members of fraternities. I'm not necessarily convinced about the gang rape accussations and suspect that if he did partake that he was shit-faced drunk. He probably was present at parties where such things happened. Julie Swetnick's statements are, in that respect, not conclusive as she's observed efforts to spike punch (the goal of which is her interpretation but we cannot know Brett's mind), she saw a line of boys including Mark and Brett and was subject to one gang rape where Mark and Brett were present at the party but nothing that is conclusive that Brett and Mark raped her as well or raped other girls. It's not certain Brett was successful in spiking punch or drugging girls or that they carried it further than groping and forceful kissing. So possible and plausible but doesn't seem provable at this point.

In all this, what strikes me is the casual lies about his drinking habits. To date that seems substantiated by other people over and over again. It's an unnecessary lie and undermines his credibility and that is what makes him unfit for the position in my view.

Some more musing: even if we assume it's a "he's said, she's said" thing then there's a 50% chance Brett was a complete douchebag and is lying about it now. Do you want to confirm a SCOTUS judge with that likelihood?

So it's quite obvious that for some reason the Republicans are very worried of losing the majority in the Senate and want to confirm Brett now even though the upcoming seats opening up are mostly held by Democrats already and as such that outcome is very unlikely as well. Even if they lose the majority, the process still seems to be that the President proposes the candidate which for the foreseeable future is still going to be a conservative/Republican candidate. It's just not going to be Brett if the Democrats would gain a majority, so it's still not a big loss for the Republicans. It seems tactically and politically stupid from where I'm standing but perhaps I'm missing an angle I'm not considering here.

So votes today regardless. 3 testimonies from separate women for which corroborated evidence could be found if you'd look for it, if it happened. Then there's Brett, who lied on Fox about his drinking habits and painted a surreal holier-than-thou picture of himself - a casual liar at least. Then there's the potential big lie about using illegally obtained democratic emails during his work, knowingly, about which he possibly lied as well.

The partisanship seems to be owned wholly by the republicans by refusing to call Mark Judge to testify or to have the FBI look into Brett's moral character in more depth.

I can't view it unfortunately but pictures and transcripts suggest she's a calm and cogent speaker.

I didn't really perceive it as a mocking laugh to be honest. More bemused and a bit incredulous.

I'm hoping Blasey Ford remembers a salient detail about Kavanaugh's anatomy and he's forced to drop his pants.

Well done. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't make that decision. :up:

From the horse's mouth:

I recently bought a box of model railroad stuff at a yard sale

. Not very arguable if you ask me.

Strictly speaking Sam Sam has a contract for model train parts, not for a ring so there's also a legal obligation to return it as it is otherwise theft. The other party, if it would discover its mistake, would have a claim as well. The only reason you probably think there's no legal obligation is because there's nobody who knows what happened that has an interest in starting proceedings to recover the ring.

Did you read the links contained within your link above? :brow: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So the best you get back with is a link that says nothing is conclusive in 2009 and ignore the studies done since then in the same article? Have you read everything or is this the bias causing you to be selective again? At the very least even that article debunks your earlier post on Debbie but you seem to miss that point entirely.

Yes, hearing a dear friend of mine, who has truly known me through the years, call me a "racist" makes it "better". — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I and a number of other posters have been engaging you for years and I've seen a gradual shift to the right and into racist positions. You haven't been paying attention. Within a few weeks of the discussion on the separation, which was appaling (your reply : but immigration!) you come up with this canard about Debbie in the Trump thread. Why? Because racist bullshit is supposed to excuse the terrible policies Trump passes? To excuse his racism? "Oh look, here's one actual criminal immigrant so trump is right calling them rapists." I really don't know what it's doing in this thread. You're playing the same game of distraction as the current administration. Where is your Fucking outrage about Trump his cronies 'crimes? If you're so concerned about crime you ought to be consistent. The fact that you're not is because it isn't about crime for you but about immigration. So well done, you misuse a tragedy to argue a case for further restrictions that isn't supported by the evidence.

Now, you can take me calling your casual racism out seriously and reflect on your position with Debbie, Trump in general, the N-word he might have said and whether you'd vote for him again if he said it and how you reacted to the inhumane treatment by the US government of immigrants by separating children (including babies) from their parents or you can play the victim for being labelled a racist. You might not like the label but it's entirely apt. The fact you keep coming back with these alt-right talking points despite the opportunity here to learn the facts and your inability to do so is what betrays the underlying bias. I'm pointing it out in the clearest term possible by using a label : tiff you've become a racist. You weren't one 5 years ago but you are one now. People change and I'm telling you, you haven't changed for the better.

Oh yes, there is a light at the end of the tunnel where people who despise Trump, are dug in resisting everything. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That last line reads like a projection. You're the one unwilling to recognise you've naively voted in a racist crook as president. The crook part was also known before his presidency but white collar crime is simply rarely prosecuted (simply settled with fines). Except when you're president you can't go around like that anymore. So you're OK with racism and criminality from a white guy but those evil immigrants fuck everything up? Mollie Tibbets used to push lies

The simple fact you lap these kind of those stories up as uncritically true, combined with your irrational support for a racist are laying bare your bias.

When does support for a racist candidate and racist policy make you a racist yourself? Who would I have to vote for for you to conclude I'm a racist in your eyes? Your line seems to be somewhere slightly to the left of David Duke. I'm telling you that Trump is right next to the guy. From where I'm standing looking at you all I have is your denial you're a racist and your dislike of being labelled as one but if it walks and talks like a duck...

If you don't like being called a racist, then don't act like one. Sorry Tiff, but it has to be said and it's probably better you hear it from me than a random stranger.

His reaction: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/22/michael-cohen-has-information-on-conspiracy-by-russians-says-lawyer

You might be on to something. Although that was a plea deal. — Michael

He still served 8 years so not that bad. :-)

And yet possessing drugs for personal use gets you years in prison. — Michael

I really should learn to clarify when something is an explanation or argument from someone else rather than something I actually believe. I meant "I suspect the judge, like most people, will think white collar crime doesn't have any "real" victims and therefore the punishment will be lenient".

Not true. It's a real problem for all of us. — Sapientia

You're right. I didn't word it well since I was shifting into the mindset of someone who would think this and as such it read as if I actually believed what I wrote.

It's white collar crime there aren't any "real" victims.

shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both

Wait a minute. Fines are a possibility under the other charges as well. I'm going to drop the imprisonment and go straight to a prison term the length of his time already in jail for breaching his bail terms and a penalty of 3 million USD.

Just a wild guess since I don't know what the defence raised. I think the bank frauds need also to show banks acted on it and some sort of proof they wouldn't have even they had the correct information. As far as I know that connection hasn't been shown in detail as they didn't call any banks for witness. In one case it was Gates who told the accountant to lie and we don't know if he decided that independently or at Manafort's request. So I suspect a minimum of 9 counts. I also would expect the judge to mitigate the sentence because of the proceedings being used as a means to pressure Manafort into witnessing in the Russian investigation. So let's say 25 years.

Simply amoral as opposed to immoral?

OK. So you think everything is honky dory where it concerns justice and fairness in your society, that it's equitable and that republicans best contribute to those values by, for instance, lowering taxes?

The effective corporate tax rate is 18.6%. Companies are the largest users of energy, natural resources, air and water and their related infrastructures. What exactly is the justification that private individuals pay more to maintain those infrastructures than those that actually use it?

Morally bankrupt?