Supreme court nominees

[LeafByNiggle]

It is indeed. A person who lacks the passion to defend himself in the face of a viscous attack is neither mature nor thoughtful.

1. The charges are not “viscous.” They are just the legal process for confirming a Justice.
2. I have never heard of any nominee to the Supreme Court being criticized for being too humble or too dispassionate in their responses. This glorification of anger is an aberration that seems to have been popularized by Trump, although I am sure he was not the first to use it.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is indeed. A person who lacks the passion to defend himself in the face of a viscous attack is neither mature nor thoughtful.

1. The charges are not “viscous.” They are just the legal process for confirming a Justice.
2. I have never heard of any nominee to the Supreme Court being criticized for being too humble or too dispassionate in their responses. This glorification of anger is an aberration that seems to have been popularized by Trump, although I am sure he was not the first to use it.

1. if you are charged with sexual assault and know you are innocent, that’s terrible. Ifa scheme is hatched to do it to you in front of the nation and it could have been revealed months earlier but was hidden until the last moment for political reasons, that viscous.
2. I’ve never heard of anyone being applauded for not responding with a passionate defense when their entire life is under attack.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. I’ve never heard of anyone being applauded for not responding with a passionate defense when their entire life is under attack.

1. His “entire life” is not under attack. Just look at Clarence Thomas. How much of his “entire life” was destroyed by Anita Hill’s charges?
2. Actually, a judicial nominee is admired for remaining dispassionate under stress. It builds confidence that dispassionate judgement is intrinsic to this person’s nature, which is a very valuable characteristic of a judge.

 

[Theo520]

Actually, a judicial nominee is admired for remaining dispassionate under stress. It builds confidence that dispassionate judgement is intrinsic to this person’s nature, which is a very valuable characteristic of a judge.

You sound like you think they are cops, or maybe an EMT or firefighter. Judges aren’t under such stress in doing their jobs. SCOTUS isn’t family or drug court.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Actually, a judicial nominee is admired for remaining dispassionate under stress. It builds confidence that dispassionate judgement is intrinsic to this person’s nature, which is a very valuable characteristic of a judge.

You sound like you think they are cops, or maybe an EMT or firefighter. Judges aren’t under such stress in doing their jobs.

If a person can be dispassionate under the stress of a hearing, then we can have more confidence that he will be dispassionate on the bench. If a person cannot maintain dispassionate responses in his hearing (or respect for the Senators asking the quesitons) it is hard to believe he can be dispassionate in his decisions, or give respect to all parties in his cases.

 

[JonNC]

His “entire life” is not under attack. Just look at Clarence Thomas. How much of his “entire life” was destroyed by Anita Hill’s charges?

Thomas’ life absolutely was under attack. Fortunately, decency won the day.
Unless decency once again triumphs, Kavanaugh’s life is under attack.

Actually, a judicial nominee is admired for remaining dispassionate under stress. It builds confidence that dispassionate judgement is intrinsic to this person’s nature, which is a very valuable characteristic of a judge.

That would be true when the debate is over judicial philosophy. Regardless of the misrepresentations told about Bork, they were mostly political. This is different. This is personal. This isn’t a mere misrepresentation of his judicial view, it is an attack on his character.
No one, even his harshest critics, have ever criticized his demeanor on the bench. He is highly regarded in that way. But Thursday, I thought he acted with passion and restraint. Well done.

 

[dvdjs]

better than falsely destroying a man’s life

We do not know if the allegations are false.
His life has not been destroyed.

If it comes out that the charges are true, impeachment is the process.

I disagree completely. Far better to avoid that problem.

It is indeed.

Nope. That is not professional demeanor. He could easily have defended himself without showing anger and making partisan attacks.

Do you realize how Orwellian it sounds to say that One passionately defending oneself is actually indicting oneself?

Not in the least.
He was unprofessional. He could easily have defended himself without showing anger and making partisan attacks.

 

[Theo520]

If a person can be dispassionate under the stress of a hearing, then we can have more confidence that he will be dispassionate on the bench. If a person cannot maintain dispassionate responses in his hearing (or respect for the Senators asking the quesitons) it is hard to believe he can be dispassionate in his decisions, or give respect to all parties in his cases.

That’s your interpretation.

I don’t think a judge should be devoid of feelings. Your ideal judge must be a sociopath.

I also recognize that the other day was also theater

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

His “entire life” is not under attack. Just look at Clarence Thomas. How much of his “entire life” was destroyed by Anita Hill’s charges?

Thomas’ life absolutely was under attack. Fortunately, decency won the day.
Unless decency once again triumphs, Kavanaugh’s life is under attack.

Fearing something might happen that has never happened before is irrational. There is every reason to believe that decency will triumph - however it turns out.

Actually, a judicial nominee is admired for remaining dispassionate under stress. It builds confidence that dispassionate judgement is intrinsic to this person’s nature, which is a very valuable characteristic of a judge.

That would be true when the debate is over judicial philosophy. Regardless of the misrepresentations told about Bork, they were mostly political. This is different. This is personal. This isn’t a mere misrepresentation of his judicial view, it is an attack on his character.

His character is being questioned, not attacked. And if his nature does not allow him to dispassionately respond to questions about his character, one can reasonably doubt that dispassionate analysis is in his nature in other areas of his life. There is a reason the Republicans were going around chanting “character matters” in 1992 with reference to Bill Clinton.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, it was early on in the race that allegations came out about his marital infidelity. Not surprisingly, a lot of Republicans seized on these allegations to make the case that a man who can’t be trusted in his personal life would likely be untrustworthy in public office.

So it seems that this sudden switch to “nothing matters except his job performance” is highly convenient.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If a person can be dispassionate under the stress of a hearing, then we can have more confidence that he will be dispassionate on the bench. If a person cannot maintain dispassionate responses in his hearing (or respect for the Senators asking the quesitons) it is hard to believe he can be dispassionate in his decisions, or give respect to all parties in his cases.

That’s your interpretation.

I don’t think a judge should be devoid of feelings. Your ideal judge must be a sociopath.

A mark of a civilized man, especially one aspiring to the highest court in the most powerful nation on earth, is that he does not let his feelings rule his actions.

I also recognize that the other day was also theater

Well, Kavanaugh did put on a stunning performance, that’s for sure!

 

[humbleseeker]

A mark of a civilized man, especially one aspiring to the highest court in the most powerful nation on earth, is that he does not let his feelings rule his actions.

I don’t think its fair to judge a man’s character from a two hour interview without considering the totality of his 30 yr public career. Also, a judge in a courtroom is a impartial third party. If not they recuse themselves. The reaction of Kavanaugh to these accusations concerning his personal life has no bearing on how he would react on the bench.

 

[JonNC]

Fearing something might happen that has never happened before is irrational. There is every reason to believe that decency will triumph - however it turns out.

Actually, it isn’t. Fear leads us to make sure we prevent it. In this case, we should strive to prevent personal attacks becoming the norm regarding SC nominations. This is the second time it has been tried.

His character is being questioned, not attacked. And if his nature does not allow him to dispassionately respond to questions about his character, one can reasonably doubt that dispassionate analysis is in his nature in other areas of his life. There is a reason the Republicans were going around chanting “character matters” in 1992 with reference to Bill Clinton.

No. It is being attacked. It n the Clinton situation, there was corroborating evidence. There is none here. Absolutely none.

So it seems that this sudden switch to “nothing matters except his job performance” is highly convenient.

Again. Corroborating evidence. With Trump, similarly, there is corroborating evidence, though nothing approaching rape like there was with Clinton. There is none regarding Judge Kavanaugh. If that changes, so does the dynamic.

 

[graciew]

A mark of a civilized man, especially one aspiring to the highest court in the most powerful nation on earth, is that he does not let his feelings rule his actions.

But see,Leaf,once again this isn t what he is being accused of.
This is the odd thing,that answers are unrelated.
And the fact that you are the most powerful nation in the world doesn’t take or add an inch away to your humanity and civility. Thanks God.
With or without the power.

 

[Theo520]

So it seems that this sudden switch to “nothing matters except his job performance” is highly convenient.

That’s only in your mind.

All his female colleagues over decades have spoke very highly of his character and how they were treated. Not a hint of sexism or that he took advantage of the power imbalance with his many female clerks.

Why are you so fixated on what teens say in their yearbooks? Clearly you don’t spend time with teens and have suppressed your memories from that stage of your own maturation. They do grow up and become responsible adults, mostly.

 

[robertmidwest]

We do not no

Would that be a homophone?

 

[JimG]

Do you realize how Orwellian it sounds to say that One passionately defending oneself is actually indicting oneself?

Orwelling is a good description.

If a man is accused, he is guilty. If he defends himself, he is more guilty. If he is angry at being falsely accused, he is not only guilty but unfit. If he is emotional, he is guilty. If his accuser is emotional, she must be telling the truth. If her memory cannot recall details of a 36 years past event, that means she is telling the truth. If he says it never happened, he is lying. If all of his coworkers and friends vouch for his character over his entire adult life, it means nothing. What matters is what he may have done in high school. This is our confirmation process.

 

[dvdjs]

Would that be a homophone?

LOL. Thanks for the giving me the jog to do a little editing.
I am clearly not homophonophobic.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Do you realize how Orwellian it sounds to say that One passionately defending oneself is actually indicting oneself?

Orwelling is a good description.

If a man is accused, he is guilty. If he defends himself, he is more guilty. If he is angry at being falsely accused, he is not only guilty but unfit. If he is emotional, he is guilty. If his accuser is emotional, she must be telling the truth. If her memory cannot recall details of a 36 years past event, that means she is telling the truth. If he says it never happened, he is lying. If all of his coworkers and friends vouch for his character over his entire adult life, it means nothing. What matters is what he may have done in high school. This is our confirmation process.

All true, unless, of course, the nominee is a progressive, then he/she is telling the truth.
If an accuser brings evidence, it is a sign they are lying.

 

[dvdjs]

If a man is accused, he is guilty

That has not been said by anyone.

If he defends himself, he is more guilty.

Nor that.

If he is emotional, he is guilty. If his accuser is emotional, she must be telling the truth.

Ditto. It is interesting that you use the word emotional, when the conversation was about anger and attack.
There are all sorts of emotions. Some of them are not good.

If her memory cannot recall details of a 36 years past event, that means she is telling the truth. If he says it never happened, he is lying.

Ditto.

If all of his coworkers and friends vouch for his character over his entire adult life, it means nothing

But this didn’t happen some did. Some flatly said that he lied in his testimony.

Considering how these propositions that you posed that essentailly no basis in actual reality, it is easy to see why “Orwellian” is on you mind.

 

[JonNC]

That has not been said by anyone.

Not here, but those two women who accosted Flake said it. Hirono implied it. Lots in the media have been overt about it.