It seems like it is a problem for these people because they've assumed guilt already. Accusations are not proof in and of themselves. I've got no problem with someone supporting a friend while they're defending themselves, no matter their role in a company.
That's the craziness of this whole thing, we're dividing America over an accusation that hasn't been able to be substantiated by any other parties. We're confronted with the most basic form of a "he said, she said" scenario. And you have half the country who assumes innocence, and half who assumes guilt, and these assumptions are made completely on where your political allegiances lie.
I've been talking with a lot of friends and family about the Kavanaugh situation. I have only had two conversations where someone's belief about what should happen here differed from their personal preference about whether Kavanaugh become a SCOTUS justice.
In the vast majority of cases, people's beliefs about what happened just so happens to align with what they want the outcome to be.
Not a personal conversation, but I'd (very slightly) prefer that K wasn't a supreme court justice, although I completely support him in this "innocent until proven guilty" quest, and in fact, since the allegations came out, I even support his nomination, because I think people shouldn't suffer any consequences from unproven allegations (because otherwise it's too easy to hurt someone or make their lives miserable), and it's not like he's getting any other job, ever.
But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like there can be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy, politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I wrote "(very slightly)" above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Stop trying to bring gender into it. This isn't about believing a man or believing a women. This is about the presumption of innocense and the need for a preponderence of evidence rather then just an accusation
Why should a person suffer any consequences because of an unfunded accusation? Do you even realize what kind of slippery slope that is?! People have lost jobs, careers because of accusations that have been proven to be false!
In this specific case, given the short time frame involved and extreme vitriol and division between parties and ideologies, I believe there is a non-negligible chance that even if Ford's testimony is entirely true (and I think it is), that others might have piled on accusations to help that claim be more likely to be taken seriously and investigated, and if so they likely fully believe they are patriots in doing so.
I do not want Kavenaugh confirmed, but I can't pretend that the Republicans are the only ones willing to play dirty pool. They seem willing to go further, but both sides of the aisle have fallen considerably in the last few years, and they weren't that high to begin with.
Well, they could just withdraw the nomination, even without admitting belief in guilt ("To help heal this fractured nation, we have decided to nominate someone else..."). Then Kavenaugh loses, and both sides go on to another candidate.
That's a win for the nation, a loss for one man, and a push for both parties. Well, maybe a slight loss for Republicans, but they'll likely get their judge in the end, and with much less controversy, which they could use to their advantage later. It's not like they don't have plenty of judges to choose from (to be clear, they have a large list that would support their goals).
That we can't immediately get past this is sickening.
Withdrawing the nomination just sends the message that due process doesn’t exist. I don’t want him confirmed, but I’m not sure that public rejection of the presumption of innocence by the US government is a price worth paying. Rock and a hard place, as they say.
> Withdrawing the nomination just sends the message that due process doesn’t exist.
Then they should call a recess for some period of time that actually allows some preliminary investigation to happen (far more than a few days, but not more than a few months). My comments are with the understanding that they are unwilling to do so. In that case, they should move on.
It's a win for the nation in that we do not need to have the confirmation process become a circus of political partisanship. An investigation should be carried out, whether Kavenaugh wants one or not, given that he currently holds a high office and it's a public accusation of a felony, but it would beneficial if it was carried out and publicly reported on outside the context of a confirmation hearing. If Kavenaugh is innocent, he loses out, but the Democrats and liberals would also face a large blow to credibility and would have problems doing the same thing again. If he's guilty, we're successfully kept someone guilty of criminal assault from the Supreme court.
It would suck for him if innocent, but that is politics, and it definitely is something he accepted as a possibility along with the nomination. But I do not think he has a right to that position, and the nation's well-being comes far-ahead of any sort of right he might expect anyway. Serving is a privilege, we should not all suffer for his privilege.
I generally find your comment such quality that you don't deserve downvotes, but I've just two comments: (1) the chances of any investigation having any guilty/innocent resolution, given that the alleged crime happened 35 years ago and even very recent rapes basically boil down to he said/she said, is very low, and (2) unfortunately, I've seen no blow to credibility to anyone, despite there having been quite a few highly-publicised rape cases that were proven to be false.
> I generally find your comment such quality that you don't deserve downvotes
Thanks. I attribute that mostly to some poor wording on my part, where I said "But I do not think he has a right to that position" to mean "he's not entitled". Unfortunately it's easily misinterpreted as "so should not get it".
> the chances of any investigation having any guilty/innocent resolution, given that the alleged crime happened 35 years ago and even very recent rapes basically boil down to he said/she said, is very low
That may be, but accusations such as this deserve to be investigated. In the general sense because someone is accusing someone else of (what is usually charged as) a felony assault, and this specific case because we do not want someone like that in power, for multiple reasons (even if we assume he's entirely changed, the blackmail potential if proof does surface is problematic).
> I've seen no blow to credibility to anyone, despite there having been quite a few highly-publicised rape cases that were proven to be false.
I think it's a matter of opportunity and reason. Most accusers probably aren't linked to (or more importantly and accurately, able to be implied as linked to) a coherent adversarial cause backed by an organization and ideology.
What that basically means is that next time, instead of a nominee on the stand talking about what sounds like a conspiracy theory about the Clintons and Democrats doing a concerted smear campaign that isn't true, they'll be able to point at a specific prior instance as evidence. That's extremely powerful.
It's completely undeniable at this point that he committed perjury, at a minimum. Several times.
His friend stated he called him up to coach him what to say about the rape accusations, at a date supposedly before he ever learned about the accusation (per his sworn testimony before congress). i.e. Kav was fully aware that an accusation was going to come out (because it is likely true).
Apart from that, there's his hilariously transparent lies about his drinking and antics in the greek life. Everyone who's known him says he was the absolute model of a drunk frat party boy, hell his friend Mark Judge published a book about it. And yes, drunk college antics are not a huge deal (as long as he didn't rape anybody), but lying to congress's faces is perjury regardless.
This isn't a courtroom and we don't have to reach an ironclad verdict on the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not appoint a perjurer who is trying to coach his witnesses to a lifetime appointment in a powerful political seat.
