You can get a good sense of who the Dems truly are by difference in the way they react to Keith Ellison and Kavanaugh’s allegations. I'm well beyond tired of the cynical, circumstantial faux morality of politics, where the only real crime is party affiliation and who is in power at any given time.
This is awfully close to "Democrats are immoral. Furthermore, putting moral weight on party affiliation is bad."
The only moral weight that is in play here *is* party affiliation. The accusations against Ellison are worse, more recent, and more credible. There is no plausible moral case to otherwise be made for radio silence on this issue and outrage over the Kavanaugh allegations.
Actually the Democrats did the right thing from the beginning and handed over all the evidence they had to investigators and didn’t let it play out in public. It was made public (not by them) and the outrage, and debate followed. Now take a look at the Ellison story and how it is being made political by the Republicans:
It is sounding hypocritical for them to do this without them also condemning Kavanaugh.
~
After what happened in Ontario with Brown, I do not like the mob rule mentality that comes with allegations of sexual misbehaviour.
I honestly think how We handle these allegations need to be reformed to a more private setting where the victims do not need to be known publicly.
At this point, Kavanaugh needs to show remorse for his actions from when he was a teenager and show how he has this incident has changed him for the better(giving up alcohol, standing up for woman’s rights, whatever). If he cannot do that, he needs to withdraw his nomination but we all know he won’t as he continues to hunker down and wait for this to blow over.
At this point, I think the Republicans own being Hypocritical. It's their Raison d'être. They screamed about Obama constantly blaming Bush II for the deficit, do they blink an eye when Trump blames Obama for everything? They do not. When a Democrat is caught doing something bad, they scream bloody murder, as if no one else in history has ever done this before. If a Republican is caught doing something bad, it's "Democrats do it, too!"
Why is Ellison's accuser MORE credible?? I don't understand what the criteria is. You seem to be engaging in the exact weaponizing you are decrying. Especially given the fact that she has claimed to have a videotape that proves the allegation that she won't produce. Are people seriously buying into the idea that Kavanaugh's accuser planted a story with her therapist 6 years ago in anticipation that Donald Trump would become President and name Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018?? Does she have access to a time machine?? Is she secretly the long-lost daughter of Doc Brown??
Also (and this has NOTHING to do with the veracity of either allegation) of course Kavanaugh is a bigger story. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is only eclipsed in power by the Presidency itself. The idea that a single House seat in Minnesota would receive the same amount of coverage or scrutiny is not even remotely realistic.
I am old enough to remember when Roy Moore's accuser admitted to partially forging some of the evidence that would be used against him in the court of journalist and public opinion, and nobody on the left even so much as doubted her story for a second.
With all due respect, this is the kind of mentality i'm talking about, your attitude flips 180 degrees depending upon the political whims of the moment.
You just spent about a page talking about why a woman wouldn't want to endure the public eye, about the stress and the potential death threats and all the other issues that come with it and make daily life hard, and how we need to be compassionate about this sort of thing.
So if a woman doesn't want to release a tape, that wasn't even brought up by her, but by her son on social media, are we to not at least take into consideration all those reasons you just mentioned? Perhaps she never brought it up herself because she didn't want it in the public eye.
I am not saying there is reason to believe her story 100%, just like there is no reason to believe Kavanaugh's 100%, and there are credible reasons to doubt it, but none of these are actually being taken into consideration, like always, it's all politics. We wouldn't ever even be talking about Ellison, the merits of his case or not, if I didn't bring it up precisely as an example of the partisan selective nature of these outrage machines.
And I wouldn't, were the hypocrisy not so painfully obvious.
I'm not sure whose hypocrisy you're referring to. Who specifically condemned Kavanaugh while pardoning Ellison? @jjstraka34 condemned both, basing the severity on specific details. If you're referring to a Democratic politician, give us a name.
I'm generally skeptical of the charge of hypocrisy unless there's an actual name attached to it. I constantly see the charge being made just to dismiss a complaint: isn't it hypocritical for conservatives to complain about Obama-era wire tapping when Bush did the same? Isn't it hypocritical for liberals to criticize Bush-era wire tapping when Obama did the same? In both cases, the question is only being made to shield a political party from criticism while accusing the other of hypocrisy--rather than actually addressing the issue of wire tapping: should we condemn it or tolerate it?
Sometimes people have no opinion about wire tapping. They just don't want their guy to get criticized, so the first and only thing they bring up is the other guy.
This is why I object to this sudden switch to Ellison. I could hardly complain about criticizing Ellison himself, but if Ellison only comes up as a counter to Kavanaugh, then we're not judging either of them on their own merits. We're just shielding Kavanaugh, but instead of saying "Kavanaugh is actually a good guy because X, Y, and Z," the message is "the important thing here is that Democrats are hypocrites."
Then we just get in an endless cycle where, instead saying "this person is good or bad because A or B," everyone just says the same thing over and over again:
"You can't criticize George because John is bad."
"You can't criticize John because George is bad."
The net result is two people accusing each other of hypocrisy even though they're saying the same thing. Worse yet, they're trying to delegitimize the very act of criticism: you can't criticize one guy, ever, because the other guy is bad. If you do, you're a hypocrite.
The interesting thing is that I've seen people who criticize BOTH George and John of being hypocrites. You can hold two different people to the same standards and people will still call you a hypocrite--not because you failed to criticize John, but because you criticized George.
That's pretty much how these hypocrisy arguments always play out. I've seen a lot of them.
If we truly have higher principles than winning the partisan fight, we bring up George not to distract from John, but to address George on his own. "George is this good/bad because A, B, and C; John is that good/bad because X, Y, and Z." I favor @jjstraka34's approach: addressing each person individually, without using one to distract from the other.
Forgive me for rambling a little--it's just that I've seen this happen a lot and it's always been unproductive.
This is why I object to this sudden switch to Ellison. I could hardly complain about criticizing Ellison himself, but if Ellison only comes up as a counter to Kavanaugh, then we're not judging either of them on their own merits. We're just shielding Kavanaugh, but instead of saying "Kavanaugh is actually a good guy because X, Y, and Z," the message is "the important thing here is that Democrats are hypocrites."
I completely disagree with your reasoning.
1) Democrats have no real interest in purging abusers from public life and will actively protect them if they feel they can get away with it while posturing as having some moral high ground
and
2) Kavanaugh could potentially be a bad guy and accusations should be listened to
can be true at the same time. I am not contesting the latter, but I am putting forward the former. I would also add that it diminishes the severity these charges should be associated with as well as the ability to provide justice to them to use them in political fashion as the democrats are doing with Kavanaugh now and have done many times previously.
If you disagree with me putting forward my argument because you feel all the attention has to be focused on Kavanaugh, all the time, and nothing else could be discussed because anything short of utter devotion to the Kavanaugh story diminishes the severity with which this particular charge alone deserves, well, that implies a level of partisanship all it's own.
This isn't the first time this whole decades old, never proven or will be proven, allegations from nowhere has happened. This is clearly a political tactic, and it is clearly designed to have you make swift decisions in the heat of the moment due to the media blitz and not think about it too much. And it is morally wrong to pursue this kind of cynical, pseudo vigilante justice, if even one person gets falsely accused and has their lives ruined because of it. That's what the actual justice system is for, free from political biases, and that's where these things should be handled.
If you disagree with me putting forward my argument because you feel all the attention has to be focused on Kavanaugh, all the time, and nothing else could be discussed because anything short of utter devotion to the Kavanaugh story diminishes the severity with which this particular charge alone deserves, well, that implies a level of partisanship all it's own.
This is not what I believe. I believe the exact opposite, and I said the exact opposite: if Ellison was brought for reasons other than Kavanaugh, I would have nothing to complain about. But Ellison did not come up because of Ellison--he came up entirely because of Kavanaugh.
I even praised @jjstraka34 specifically because he dropped Kavanaugh to address Ellison. That's not the mark of a person who thinks only Kavanaugh should be talked about.
We wouldn't ever even be talking about Ellison, the merits of his case or not, if I didn't bring it up precisely as an example of the partisan selective nature of these outrage machines.
This is actually the problem in my view: bringing up Ellison strictly because of the partisan angle. Not because Kavanaugh is good or even Ellison is bad, but because the Democrats are the bad guys and shouldn't be trusted.
The non-partisan thing would be to simply criticize Ellison.
If you disagree with me putting forward my argument because you feel all the attention has to be focused on Kavanaugh, all the time, and nothing else could be discussed because anything short of utter devotion to the Kavanaugh story diminishes the severity with which this particular charge alone deserves, well, that implies a level of partisanship all it's own.
This is not what I believe. I believe the exact opposite, and I said the exact opposite: if Ellison was brought for reasons other than Kavanaugh, I would have nothing to complain about. But Ellison did not come up because of Ellison--he came up entirely because of Kavanaugh.
I even praised @jjstraka34 specifically because he dropped Kavanaugh to address Ellison. That's not the mark of a person who thinks only Kavanaugh should be talked about.
Ellison would not have been brought up at all, and certainly not to give him fair treatment, and Kavanaugh would always have been brought up no matter what, that's kind of exactly my point.
You seem to be objecting to me pointing out this selective focus, my point being that it is due to the partisan angle that this is happening. You object to it on the basis that i'm taking a partisan angle. That's certainly one way to look at it, if you think fair treatment among criminal allegations is partisan.
Do you at least agree saying nothing about Ellison and pages about Kavanaugh implies partisanship, even on a subconscious level or one simply due to media bubbles?
Why is Ellison's accuser MORE credible?? I don't understand what the criteria is. You seem to be engaging in the exact weaponizing you are decrying. Especially given the fact that she has claimed to have a videotape that proves the allegation that she won't produce. Are people seriously buying into the idea that Kavanaugh's accuser planted a story with her therapist 6 years ago in anticipation that Donald Trump would become President and name Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018?? Does she have access to a time machine?? Is she secretly the long-lost daughter of Doc Brown??
Also (and this has NOTHING to do with the veracity of either allegation) of course Kavanaugh is a bigger story. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is only eclipsed in power by the Presidency itself. The idea that a single House seat in Minnesota would receive the same amount of coverage or scrutiny is not even remotely realistic.
I am old enough to remember when Roy Moore's accuser admitted to partially forging some of the evidence that would be used against him in the court of journalist and public opinion, and nobody on the left even so much as doubted her story for a second.
With all due respect, this is the kind of mentality i'm talking about, your attitude flips 180 degrees depending upon the political whims of the moment.
You just spent about a page talking about why a woman wouldn't want to endure the public eye, about the stress and the potential death threats and all the other issues that come with it and make daily life hard, and how we need to be compassionate about this sort of thing.
So if a woman doesn't want to release a tape, that wasn't even brought up by her, but by her son on social media, are we to not at least take into consideration all those reasons you just mentioned? Perhaps she never brought it up herself because she didn't want it in the public eye.
I am not saying there is reason to believe her story 100%, just like there is no reason to believe Kavanaugh's 100%, and there are credible reasons to doubt it, but none of these are actually being taken into consideration, like always, it's all politics. We wouldn't ever even be talking about Ellison, the merits of his case or not, if I didn't bring it up precisely as an example of the partisan selective nature of these outrage machines.
Making an accusation is one thing. Saying that you have video evidence of the alleged assault and not producing it is completely unfair. You can't make the claim about the alleged assault in public, then throw out a videotape claim, and then not produce the video or say it was lost or whatever the case may be. And I'm assuming her and her son talk occasionally. Implying that they have concrete proof Ellison dragged her violently off a bed but then steadfastly refusing to produce such a tape is pretty far removed from coming forward in general. She has already made her story public at that point. How is Ellison supposed to defend against a phantom video?? If that is going to be introduced into the equation, the alleged video can't just sit in a box somewhere for the rest of time.
And the reason Kavanaugh is getting pages of attention is that there is no comparison between a Supreme Court nominee and an individual member of the House of Representatives. And I went on at length about Ellison the moment you brought it up. I think the story is slightly troubling, but nowhere near the level of attempted rape. It's also absurd to say Democrats don't care about purging their ranks when one of their most effective Senators was run out of Washington for a single photograph and a couple of groping allegations. Which I personally led the charge for on this forum despite Al Franken literally being one of my favorite politicians. They now have an almost invisible back-bencher in his seat. It was a huge loss to the party. Many on the left are still pissed at people like me for pushing to force him out. John Conyers also resigned. Nancy Pelosi forced Anthony Weiner out of the House within 48 hours when his scandal first broke. John Edwards was excommunicated from the party the moment his scandal hit. Frankly, you have to go back to Bill Clinton to find them defending even remotely similar behavior, and that was in 1998.
This is why I object to this sudden switch to Ellison. I could hardly complain about criticizing Ellison himself, but if Ellison only comes up as a counter to Kavanaugh, then we're not judging either of them on their own merits. We're just shielding Kavanaugh, but instead of saying "Kavanaugh is actually a good guy because X, Y, and Z," the message is "the important thing here is that Democrats are hypocrites."
I completely disagree with your reasoning.
1) Democrats have no real interest in purging abusers from public life and will actively protect them if they feel they can get away with it while posturing as having some moral high ground.
Republicans have no real interest purging abusers from public life and will actively protect them if they feel they can get away with it while posturing as having some moral high ground.
Both parties do this. Just look at the Christian Right. So if a person can replace one nme for the other, these actions wash each other out and neither should be judged for whatever perceived political advantage they are attempting to get while making the allegations.
Blaming one party for this action and not the other is partisan.
@WarChiefZeke: I'm getting the feeling we agree with each other more than we think we do. We're both stressing the need to address both Ellison and Kavanaugh independently. I think our disagreements might be more semantic than anything else.
All three of these things are being done to get Kavanaugh off the lead of news stories as all three were announced within the last 8 hours starting with the tariffs after the American markets closed. The media, the public and everyone else is going to fall for it.
All the while, attacks on the victim ramp up, even falsely, to discredit her before she makes an appearance a week from now in front of a widely public setting, where more attacks will definitely take place.
Trump has bought the Republicans a week to clean up his mess of a nomination. Expect them to come out swinging in an attempt to save face.
Let me address for one moment the idea that this is all based on politics. It is not ALL based on politics, but it certainly is political. That is not a bad thing. Because politics, in the end, is power. Let me go over the situation Democrats/liberals/left find themselves in in regards to the Supreme Court:
1). 66 million people voted for Barack Obama in the 2012 election, with the understanding that the President of the United States is allowed to make Supreme Court picks. For the first time in history, the President was denied the ability to make that pick, and the Republican Senate flat-out refused to have a hearing for 300 days. Moreover, they made it ABUNDANTLY clear that if Hillary Clinton had won and Republicans retained control of the Senate, she would also not be allowed a pick, effectively making the new policy of the GOP "only Republicans get to make Supreme Court picks".
2.) That picked was handed off to his Republican successor who had no right to be making it. Of course, that pick was Gorsuch, but it is impossible not to feel that EVERY pick from now on is in fact, the Garland pick. It was our guy's pick to make, and he never got to make it. Until that is remedied (and it really can't be remedied without court packing or impeachment of a justice) it is hard for many of us to view the Supreme Court as a legitimate body anymore.
3.) Obama's two picks, Sotomayor and Kagan, had ALL their records turned over in regards to their time in government during their nominations. The vast majority of Kavanaugh's record from the Bush Administration are being purposefully hidden from the Senate and from the public.
4.) Kavanaugh has been found to have, at the very least, been wholly untruthful in confirmation hearings for lower court seats. The idea that one of the nine judges of the Supreme Court should be able to get away with lying under oath is absurd.
5.) Kavanaugh is going to be THE vote that destroys women's reproductive health in this country. Even if he doesn't flat-out vote to overturn Roe, he will absolutely join the majority in crippling abortion rights at the state level to the point where it will be effectively the same.
6.) The idea that the person who is MOST likely in the last 50 years to be the vote that fundamentally changes the rights of women to have autonomy over their own bodies would be a person who may have LITERALLY forced himself upon a woman's body is simply the absolute last straw, especially given everything else I have already mentioned in this list.
So OF COURSE the left is going to use this accusation to try to defeat his nomination. Even taken on it's own merits, it is of course important to find out the truth about what took place. But the idea that the Democrats should continue to allow themselves to get steamrolled in regards to the most powerful branch of government given the constant BS we have put up with in regards to this institution since Obama's last year in office is absurd. Of course we are going to fight to keep him (and ANY one of) Trump's nominees off the bench. To do anything less would be absolute political malpractice given what has taken place. Not fighting to do so allows the most cynical and blatant power grab I have ever seen to go unchecked. That does NOT mean the accusation is manufactured. But of course the left is going to try use it to end Kavanaugh's nomination. This isn't hopscotch.
I am watching clips of the Anita Hill testimony from 1991 on MSNBC right now, and by god, nothing has really changed. We can certainly expect something similar on Monday. Of course, over the decades, it was revealed that Anita Hill was entirely truthful in her testimony (to the point that former right-wing hitmen have written entire books talking about the coordinated effort to smear her). Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grasssley are still around for round 2. Why in the holy hell anyone would think a woman would PERJURE herself under oath before the Senate of the United States simply to stick it to a male nominee is beyond understanding.
Meanwhile in Canada: For the 274th time, a MP has "crossed the floor" to join another party. The culprit this time, is Leona Alleslev who left the Federal Liberals for the Conservative Party and takes a "newly-created role of global security critic."
Her reasoning for doing so was vague, however this article sheds some light about her being demoted in the liberal caucus and her riding going Conservative in the recent Provincial election.
I despise when MPs do this, as most Canadians vote for the party or leader in elections and not some no name candidate. I agree with the NDP that there should be a bye-election held immediately if an MP leaves a party for another one, or to start a new one, like Maxime Bernier did last week. This will prevent "greener grass" MPs from putting themselves first instead of the people that they are suppose to be representing.
Meanwhile in Canada: For the 274th time, a MP has "crossed the floor" to join another party. The culprit this time, is Leona Alleslev who left the Federal Liberals for the Conservative Party and takes a "newly-created role of global security critic."
Her reasoning for doing so was vague, however this article sheds some light about her being demoted in the liberal caucus and her riding going Conservative in the recent Provincial election.
I despise when MPs do this, as most Canadians vote for the party or leader in elections and not some no name candidate. I agree with the NDP that there should be a bye-election held immediately if an MP leaves a party for another one, or to start a new one, like Maxime Bernier did last week. This will prevent "greener grass" MPs from putting themselves first instead of the people that they are suppose to be representing.
This happens occasionally here as well, with the most notable ones in recent years being the late Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat after Obama was elected and Angus King going from Republican to Independent.
I am watching clips of the Anita Hill testimony from 1991 on MSNBC right now, and by god, nothing has really changed. We can certainly expect something similar on Monday. Of course, over the decades, it was revealed that Anita Hill was entirely truthful in her testimony (to the point that former right-wing hitmen have written entire books talking about the coordinated effort to smear her). Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grasssley are still around for round 2. Why in the holy hell anyone would think a woman would PERJURE herself under oath before the Senate of the United States simply to stick it to a male nominee is beyond understanding.
They don't care if she wants to perjure herself or not they only care about the appearance of dismissing her story and the easiest way to do that is to smear the victim.
Same shit is going on in Texas the cop who went in the wrong apartment and shot an innocent man the cops are trying to smear him saying bah gawd that black guy had marijuana in his apartment! And he didn't follow the verbal commands (that probably never occurred) from the intruder who invaded his apartment!
Smear the victim.
Republican dirty tricks 101 as used against Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and others. Come to think of it Republicans seem to have a real problem with women being in positions of influence. Seems to be a trend there.
So Beto O'Rourke was speaking to a mostly African-American audience over the weekend, decrying the killing of Botham Jean. What is Ted Cruz's take on the situation??
Cruz, in an interview with Fox 26 Houston that aired on Sunday, said O’Rourke and other Democrats were too “quick to always blame the police officer.”
“I don’t think we should jump to any conclusions,” the senator said. “It may have been just a horrific misunderstanding.”
What other conclusions should we jump to when an off-duty cop breaks into someone else's home and murders them when they were sitting on the couch eating a bowl of cereal?? Misunderstanding?? Who the f**k else is to blame but the woman who killed him?? Who ADMITS to killing him. Please god let this guy miraculously go down in defeat in November.
How about the bare minimum anyone's position on this case is is that you don't get extenuating circumstances for what is essentially a home invasion and murder simply because your job happens to be in law enforcement. Because I swear to god right now there is about a 50/50 chance this woman is going to skate even on the manslaughter charge.
Meanwhile, in Mass. a inadvertent screenshot showed that police are specifically monitoring anti-police brutality groups and anti-Trump organizations. But hey, we totally aren't living in a police state. It's becoming abundantly clear whose side law enforcement is on in this country:
Ms. Ford's allegations are probably true. That being said, are we really at the point now where all allegations are automatically believed and the accused is deemed guilty in the court of public opinion without proof? When did the court of public opinion become an actual court where guilt is determined? If he is suspected of committing a crime and the statute of limitation has not expired then charges should be filed and the case should be prosecuted. If there is insufficient evidence to produce a guilty verdict then he becomes innocent of those charges. *That* is our criminal justice system, not sound bytes and op-eds.
Meanwhile, in Mass. a inadvertent screenshot showed that police are specifically monitoring anti-police brutality groups and anti-Trump organizations. But hey, we totally aren't living in a police state. It's becoming abundantly clear whose side law enforcement is on in this country
I don't recall anyone warning against a police state when Federal authorities were issuing documents during the Obama Administration about how people displaying a Gadsen Flag were probably domestic terrorists.
I can tell you whose side law enforcement is on in this country: law enforcement's. It certainly isn't the side of the citizens.
@Mathsorcerer "I don't recall anyone warning against a police state when Federal authorities were issuing documents during the Obama Administration about how people displaying a Gadsen Flag were probably domestic terrorists. "
I was, but that was before these forums (or at least being active on them). I warned against it during Bush as well. Things have only gotten worse since then.
Ms. Ford's allegations are probably true. That being said, are we really at the point now where all allegations are automatically believed and the accused is deemed guilty in the court of public opinion without proof? When did the court of public opinion become an actual court where guilt is determined? If he is suspected of committing a crime and the statute of limitation has not expired then charges should be filed and the case should be prosecuted. If there is insufficient evidence to produce a guilty verdict then he becomes innocent of those charges. *That* is our criminal justice system, not sound bytes and op-eds.
Meanwhile, in Mass. a inadvertent screenshot showed that police are specifically monitoring anti-police brutality groups and anti-Trump organizations. But hey, we totally aren't living in a police state. It's becoming abundantly clear whose side law enforcement is on in this country
I don't recall anyone warning against a police state when Federal authorities were issuing documents during the Obama Administration about how people displaying a Gadsen Flag were probably domestic terrorists.
I can tell you whose side law enforcement is on in this country: law enforcement's. It certainly isn't the side of the citizens.
It's a pendulum effect. Rich and powerful have been getting away with murder by influencing public opinion to their innocence to crimes.
For years the rich and celebs have gotten away with crimes because they can sell their story to the public and then half the time it comes out later that they actually did do whatever they denied. So at this point the assumptions have gone the other way that yeah they probably did do it.
Ms. Ford's allegations are probably true. That being said, are we really at the point now where all allegations are automatically believed and the accused is deemed guilty in the court of public opinion without proof? When did the court of public opinion become an actual court where guilt is determined? If he is suspected of committing a crime and the statute of limitation has not expired then charges should be filed and the case should be prosecuted. If there is insufficient evidence to produce a guilty verdict then he becomes innocent of those charges. *That* is our criminal justice system, not sound bytes and op-eds.
And that's right for the criminal justice system, but that's not the only issue in this sort of confirmation process. It's always been the case that certain appointments are the subject of scrutiny beyond that in the criminal justice system - think of the system of security clearances in the US for instance or employment around children in the UK.
I don't think it's unreasonable to be cautious about appointing a Supreme Court Judge if there are doubts about his integrity. While the standard of proof applied in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt", for this sort of appointment I would have thought a more appropriate standard would be the one applied in civil cases, i.e. "balance of probabilities". That certainly could lead to an unfair result for an applicant, but the cost of appointing someone unfit for the role is so high that I think some potential unfairness is justified.
Ms. Ford's allegations are probably true. That being said, are we really at the point now where all allegations are automatically believed and the accused is deemed guilty in the court of public opinion without proof? When did the court of public opinion become an actual court where guilt is determined? If he is suspected of committing a crime and the statute of limitation has not expired then charges should be filed and the case should be prosecuted. If there is insufficient evidence to produce a guilty verdict then he becomes innocent of those charges. *That* is our criminal justice system, not sound bytes and op-eds.
And that's right for the criminal justice system, but that's not the only issue in this sort of confirmation process. It's always been the case that certain appointments are the subject of scrutiny beyond that in the criminal justice system - think of the system of security clearances in the US for instance or employment around children in the UK.
I don't think it's unreasonable to be cautious about appointing a Supreme Court Judge if there are doubts about his integrity. While the standard of proof applied in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt", for this sort of appointment I would have thought a more appropriate standard would be the one applied in civil cases, i.e. "balance of probabilities". That certainly could lead to an unfair result for an applicant, but the cost of appointing someone unfit for the role is so high that I think some potential unfairness is justified.
I'd argue the standard is now even lower than that. Merrick Garland was denied his seat (indeed, even a hearing) for the crime of being nominated by a Democrat. And no, there is no evidentiary threshold for a Supreme Court hearing. No one is calling for a criminal trial. Robert Bork was not found guilty of any crime. It was of course 100% true that he is the one who carried out Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. He wasn't found guilty by a jury. He was deemed unfit for his seat because he helped a lawless President attempt to destroy the rule of law.
Comments
It was made public (not by them) and the outrage, and debate followed.
Now take a look at the Ellison story and how it is being made political by the Republicans:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/28/keith-ellison-abuse-allegations-republican-response-798994
It is sounding hypocritical for them to do this without them also condemning Kavanaugh.
~
After what happened in Ontario with Brown, I do not like the mob rule mentality that comes with allegations of sexual misbehaviour.
I honestly think how We handle these allegations need to be reformed to a more private setting where the victims do not need to be known publicly.
At this point, Kavanaugh needs to show remorse for his actions from when he was a teenager and show how he has this incident has changed him for the better(giving up alcohol, standing up for woman’s rights, whatever). If he cannot do that, he needs to withdraw his nomination but we all know he won’t as he continues to hunker down and wait for this to blow over.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
With all due respect, this is the kind of mentality i'm talking about, your attitude flips 180 degrees depending upon the political whims of the moment.
You just spent about a page talking about why a woman wouldn't want to endure the public eye, about the stress and the potential death threats and all the other issues that come with it and make daily life hard, and how we need to be compassionate about this sort of thing.
So if a woman doesn't want to release a tape, that wasn't even brought up by her, but by her son on social media, are we to not at least take into consideration all those reasons you just mentioned? Perhaps she never brought it up herself because she didn't want it in the public eye.
I am not saying there is reason to believe her story 100%, just like there is no reason to believe Kavanaugh's 100%, and there are credible reasons to doubt it, but none of these are actually being taken into consideration, like always, it's all politics. We wouldn't ever even be talking about Ellison, the merits of his case or not, if I didn't bring it up precisely as an example of the partisan selective nature of these outrage machines.
I'm generally skeptical of the charge of hypocrisy unless there's an actual name attached to it. I constantly see the charge being made just to dismiss a complaint: isn't it hypocritical for conservatives to complain about Obama-era wire tapping when Bush did the same? Isn't it hypocritical for liberals to criticize Bush-era wire tapping when Obama did the same? In both cases, the question is only being made to shield a political party from criticism while accusing the other of hypocrisy--rather than actually addressing the issue of wire tapping: should we condemn it or tolerate it?
Sometimes people have no opinion about wire tapping. They just don't want their guy to get criticized, so the first and only thing they bring up is the other guy.
This is why I object to this sudden switch to Ellison. I could hardly complain about criticizing Ellison himself, but if Ellison only comes up as a counter to Kavanaugh, then we're not judging either of them on their own merits. We're just shielding Kavanaugh, but instead of saying "Kavanaugh is actually a good guy because X, Y, and Z," the message is "the important thing here is that Democrats are hypocrites."
Then we just get in an endless cycle where, instead saying "this person is good or bad because A or B," everyone just says the same thing over and over again:
"You can't criticize George because John is bad."
"You can't criticize John because George is bad."
The net result is two people accusing each other of hypocrisy even though they're saying the same thing. Worse yet, they're trying to delegitimize the very act of criticism: you can't criticize one guy, ever, because the other guy is bad. If you do, you're a hypocrite.
The interesting thing is that I've seen people who criticize BOTH George and John of being hypocrites. You can hold two different people to the same standards and people will still call you a hypocrite--not because you failed to criticize John, but because you criticized George.
That's pretty much how these hypocrisy arguments always play out. I've seen a lot of them.
If we truly have higher principles than winning the partisan fight, we bring up George not to distract from John, but to address George on his own. "George is this good/bad because A, B, and C; John is that good/bad because X, Y, and Z." I favor @jjstraka34's approach: addressing each person individually, without using one to distract from the other.
Forgive me for rambling a little--it's just that I've seen this happen a lot and it's always been unproductive.
I completely disagree with your reasoning.
1) Democrats have no real interest in purging abusers from public life and will actively protect them if they feel they can get away with it while posturing as having some moral high ground
and
2) Kavanaugh could potentially be a bad guy and accusations should be listened to
can be true at the same time. I am not contesting the latter, but I am putting forward the former. I would also add that it diminishes the severity these charges should be associated with as well as the ability to provide justice to them to use them in political fashion as the democrats are doing with Kavanaugh now and have done many times previously.
If you disagree with me putting forward my argument because you feel all the attention has to be focused on Kavanaugh, all the time, and nothing else could be discussed because anything short of utter devotion to the Kavanaugh story diminishes the severity with which this particular charge alone deserves, well, that implies a level of partisanship all it's own.
This isn't the first time this whole decades old, never proven or will be proven, allegations from nowhere has happened. This is clearly a political tactic, and it is clearly designed to have you make swift decisions in the heat of the moment due to the media blitz and not think about it too much. And it is morally wrong to pursue this kind of cynical, pseudo vigilante justice, if even one person gets falsely accused and has their lives ruined because of it. That's what the actual justice system is for, free from political biases, and that's where these things should be handled.
I even praised @jjstraka34 specifically because he dropped Kavanaugh to address Ellison. That's not the mark of a person who thinks only Kavanaugh should be talked about.
The non-partisan thing would be to simply criticize Ellison.
You seem to be objecting to me pointing out this selective focus, my point being that it is due to the partisan angle that this is happening. You object to it on the basis that i'm taking a partisan angle. That's certainly one way to look at it, if you think fair treatment among criminal allegations is partisan.
Do you at least agree saying nothing about Ellison and pages about Kavanaugh implies partisanship, even on a subconscious level or one simply due to media bubbles?
And the reason Kavanaugh is getting pages of attention is that there is no comparison between a Supreme Court nominee and an individual member of the House of Representatives. And I went on at length about Ellison the moment you brought it up. I think the story is slightly troubling, but nowhere near the level of attempted rape. It's also absurd to say Democrats don't care about purging their ranks when one of their most effective Senators was run out of Washington for a single photograph and a couple of groping allegations. Which I personally led the charge for on this forum despite Al Franken literally being one of my favorite politicians. They now have an almost invisible back-bencher in his seat. It was a huge loss to the party. Many on the left are still pissed at people like me for pushing to force him out. John Conyers also resigned. Nancy Pelosi forced Anthony Weiner out of the House within 48 hours when his scandal first broke. John Edwards was excommunicated from the party the moment his scandal hit. Frankly, you have to go back to Bill Clinton to find them defending even remotely similar behavior, and that was in 1998.
I completely disagree with your reasoning.
1) Democrats have no real interest in purging abusers from public life and will actively protect them if they feel they can get away with it while posturing as having some moral high ground.
Republicans have no real interest purging abusers from public life and will actively protect them if they feel they can get away with it while posturing as having some moral high ground.
Both parties do this. Just look at the Christian Right. So if a person can replace one nme for the other, these actions wash each other out and neither should be judged for whatever perceived political advantage they are attempting to get while making the allegations.
Blaming one party for this action and not the other is partisan.
- He is declassifying documents related to the Russia Probe
- He is adding more tariffs to Chinese Imports against the wishes of American Commerceand
- He is capping Refugee claims at an all time low.
All three of these things are being done to get Kavanaugh off the lead of news stories as all three were announced within the last 8 hours starting with the tariffs after the American markets closed. The media, the public and everyone else is going to fall for it.All the while, attacks on the victim ramp up, even falsely, to discredit her before she makes an appearance a week from now in front of a widely public setting, where more attacks will definitely take place.
Trump has bought the Republicans a week to clean up his mess of a nomination. Expect them to come out swinging in an attempt to save face.
1). 66 million people voted for Barack Obama in the 2012 election, with the understanding that the President of the United States is allowed to make Supreme Court picks. For the first time in history, the President was denied the ability to make that pick, and the Republican Senate flat-out refused to have a hearing for 300 days. Moreover, they made it ABUNDANTLY clear that if Hillary Clinton had won and Republicans retained control of the Senate, she would also not be allowed a pick, effectively making the new policy of the GOP "only Republicans get to make Supreme Court picks".
2.) That picked was handed off to his Republican successor who had no right to be making it. Of course, that pick was Gorsuch, but it is impossible not to feel that EVERY pick from now on is in fact, the Garland pick. It was our guy's pick to make, and he never got to make it. Until that is remedied (and it really can't be remedied without court packing or impeachment of a justice) it is hard for many of us to view the Supreme Court as a legitimate body anymore.
3.) Obama's two picks, Sotomayor and Kagan, had ALL their records turned over in regards to their time in government during their nominations. The vast majority of Kavanaugh's record from the Bush Administration are being purposefully hidden from the Senate and from the public.
4.) Kavanaugh has been found to have, at the very least, been wholly untruthful in confirmation hearings for lower court seats. The idea that one of the nine judges of the Supreme Court should be able to get away with lying under oath is absurd.
5.) Kavanaugh is going to be THE vote that destroys women's reproductive health in this country. Even if he doesn't flat-out vote to overturn Roe, he will absolutely join the majority in crippling abortion rights at the state level to the point where it will be effectively the same.
6.) The idea that the person who is MOST likely in the last 50 years to be the vote that fundamentally changes the rights of women to have autonomy over their own bodies would be a person who may have LITERALLY forced himself upon a woman's body is simply the absolute last straw, especially given everything else I have already mentioned in this list.
So OF COURSE the left is going to use this accusation to try to defeat his nomination. Even taken on it's own merits, it is of course important to find out the truth about what took place. But the idea that the Democrats should continue to allow themselves to get steamrolled in regards to the most powerful branch of government given the constant BS we have put up with in regards to this institution since Obama's last year in office is absurd. Of course we are going to fight to keep him (and ANY one of) Trump's nominees off the bench. To do anything less would be absolute political malpractice given what has taken place. Not fighting to do so allows the most cynical and blatant power grab I have ever seen to go unchecked. That does NOT mean the accusation is manufactured. But of course the left is going to try use it to end Kavanaugh's nomination. This isn't hopscotch.
The creepy note and Roy Moore's signature are the evidence.
The date being annotated by the victim does not invalidate the evidence.
For the 274th time, a MP has "crossed the floor" to join another party.
The culprit this time, is Leona Alleslev who left the Federal Liberals for the Conservative Party and takes a "newly-created role of global security critic."
Her reasoning for doing so was vague, however this article sheds some light about her being demoted in the liberal caucus and her riding going Conservative in the recent Provincial election.
I despise when MPs do this, as most Canadians vote for the party or leader in elections and not some no name candidate. I agree with the NDP that there should be a bye-election held immediately if an MP leaves a party for another one, or to start a new one, like Maxime Bernier did last week. This will prevent "greener grass" MPs from putting themselves first instead of the people that they are suppose to be representing.
Same shit is going on in Texas the cop who went in the wrong apartment and shot an innocent man the cops are trying to smear him saying bah gawd that black guy had marijuana in his apartment! And he didn't follow the verbal commands (that probably never occurred) from the intruder who invaded his apartment!
Smear the victim.
Republican dirty tricks 101 as used against Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and others. Come to think of it Republicans seem to have a real problem with women being in positions of influence. Seems to be a trend there.
Cruz, in an interview with Fox 26 Houston that aired on Sunday, said O’Rourke and other Democrats were too “quick to always blame the police officer.”
“I don’t think we should jump to any conclusions,” the senator said. “It may have been just a horrific misunderstanding.”
What other conclusions should we jump to when an off-duty cop breaks into someone else's home and murders them when they were sitting on the couch eating a bowl of cereal?? Misunderstanding?? Who the f**k else is to blame but the woman who killed him?? Who ADMITS to killing him. Please god let this guy miraculously go down in defeat in November.
How about the bare minimum anyone's position on this case is is that you don't get extenuating circumstances for what is essentially a home invasion and murder simply because your job happens to be in law enforcement. Because I swear to god right now there is about a 50/50 chance this woman is going to skate even on the manslaughter charge.
Meanwhile, in Mass. a inadvertent screenshot showed that police are specifically monitoring anti-police brutality groups and anti-Trump organizations. But hey, we totally aren't living in a police state. It's becoming abundantly clear whose side law enforcement is on in this country:
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/17/an-errant-screenshot-reveals-massachusetts-police-monitor-liberal-groups/#close
I can tell you whose side law enforcement is on in this country: law enforcement's. It certainly isn't the side of the citizens.
I was, but that was before these forums (or at least being active on them). I warned against it during Bush as well. Things have only gotten worse since then.
For years the rich and celebs have gotten away with crimes because they can sell their story to the public and then half the time it comes out later that they actually did do whatever they denied. So at this point the assumptions have gone the other way that yeah they probably did do it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to be cautious about appointing a Supreme Court Judge if there are doubts about his integrity. While the standard of proof applied in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt", for this sort of appointment I would have thought a more appropriate standard would be the one applied in civil cases, i.e. "balance of probabilities". That certainly could lead to an unfair result for an applicant, but the cost of appointing someone unfit for the role is so high that I think some potential unfairness is justified.
I'd argue the standard is now even lower than that. Merrick Garland was denied his seat (indeed, even a hearing) for the crime of being nominated by a Democrat. And no, there is no evidentiary threshold for a Supreme Court hearing. No one is calling for a criminal trial. Robert Bork was not found guilty of any crime. It was of course 100% true that he is the one who carried out Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. He wasn't found guilty by a jury. He was deemed unfit for his seat because he helped a lawless President attempt to destroy the rule of law.