Supreme court nominees

[Ender]

Both parties have dirty hands, and if a liberal Democrat were up for confirmation, Republicans wouldn’t care what uncorroborated dirt was slung at him or her, and they’d be throwing it. They have thrown it.

Politics as usual.

Liberals have essentially one argument: my opponent is evil. In cases like this one, when the behavior of their representatives is beyond egregious, and reasonable defense is impossible, the excuse is “I’m no worse than my opponent.” That is, they concede that the behavior is reprehensible but accept it anyway with the excuse that the other side does it too.

Even in the case of nominations for Supreme Court justice, where there is not a single instance of Republicans ever treating a Democrat nominee this way, the charge is still made: they’ve done it too. The truth has literally become irrelevant.

 

[ConstantLearner]

My personal opinion is yes, we want the best to serve on the Supreme Court but maybe from now on in the future, look at other candidates, not Yale, not the Ivy League Schools. Okay, Amy Coney Barret is okay for wherever she is from but we need to get more different backgrounds on the court in my humble opinion. Amy, some Notre Dame if I remember correctly, so that’s something.

We don’t want an “all-Catholic court” if we want diversity. Right now, it’s not all-Catholic, so Trump should appoint a Jewish person or a Protestant if he gets another pick. Even an atheist or a Muslim. As long as they’re a fair and impartial jurist, with a good reputation. We don’t want an all-Jewish court, either, or an all-Protestant court.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Liberals have essentially one argument: my opponent is evil. In cases like this one, when the behavior of their representatives is beyond egregious, and reasonable defense is impossible, the excuse is “I’m no worse than my opponent.” That is, they concede that the behavior is reprehensible but accept it anyway with the excuse that the other side does it too.

Oh, that’s no more true than Trump is from Mars!

 

[Ender]

…but not disproven. You can only say it is slanderous if you can prove it is a false accusation.

And here we have the new standard: it is not the presence of evidence to support an accusation that makes it reasonable, it is whether or not it can be proven false - not whether there is evidence against it, but only whether it can be completely disproved. It would seem unnecessary to point out the danger of such a standard, but we are likely to see more of this in the future.

Now, it may be true that the legal standard for winning a case where slander is alleged is that the charge must be disproved, but what we’re facing here is the extralegal use of slander to achieve a political goal. In this case it is only the accusation that matters. When a charge like the one leveled against Kavanaugh is made, the utter and complete lack of evidence is totally irrelevant. The media picks it up, amplifies it, the troops are mobilized and the charge sticks - truth be damned.

And all the while there are soothing voices tut-tutting about how the target has “over reacted” to his treatment. He is debased by the charge and then hit again for his reaction to it. Senator Graham was right when he responded to a heckler asking how he could believe someone like Kavanaugh: “Should we dunk him in water and see if he floats?” This process has become every bit the witch hunt. So far we’ve seen everything but the torches.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Then, on another note, Mueller must be catching a lot of witches given the number of indictments he’s gotten.

 

[dvdjs]

Liberals have essentially one argument: my opponent is evil

My goodness. Don’t you see this happening in reverse even more often?
This is the gist of talk radio. It happens here as a variant of Godwin’s law: party of death therefore …

 

[sallybutler]

And it seems to me that many “conservatives” say anything is okay as long as Roe v. Wade is overturned. No sin is as grievous as not opposing Roe v. Wade.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I do see that as bullying, but I do not see that as something you can pin on Democrats as a group, any more than you can pin the Charlottesville violence by neo nazis on Trump.

But if you really want to see bullying, just look at what is happening to Christine Blasey Ford and her family right now. She is unable to go back to her home.

When you instruct your base to ‘harass’ conservatives, anyone not a moron would expect a wide ranging response. Maxine is culpable.

First of all, you are using a stronger word than she did. Secondly, I deny that a response beyond what Maxine called for is her responsibility.

I’m sorry for Ford’s situation. I wish Diane had turned this over to the FBI immediately for investigation, and then Ford could have given her testimony quietly many weeks ago.

Yes, but we are where we are now. And bullying is not justified, regardless of whether someone else could have made the bullying less likely.

Though I must remind you that Ford also reached out to the Washington Post on many occasions, she has some culpability in publicising her name in the media.

No. A person is not culpable for receiving bullying just because she did not do everything in her power to avoid it. Next you will be telling me that a women who walks by a construction site in a tight red dress is culpable for being pinched in her rear.

 

[dvdjs]

And here we have the new standard: it is not the presence of evidence to support an accusation that makes it reasonable, it is whether or not it can be proven false - not whether there is evidence against it, but only whether it can be completely disproved. It would seem unnecessary to point out the danger of such a standard, but we are likely to see more of this in the future.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that this approval process is not a criminal trial. Yet somehow that seems, to some, to be the required standard for considering the nominee. It might be illuminating to consider hypothesis testing in science. The standard that you described is a bit similar standard that is applied in the advancing knowledge: it is the proof that an idea is false that is dispositive, whatever the prior supporting evidence. That is not seen by as unfair or unwise.

 

[ConstantLearner]

And it seems to me that many “conservatives” say anything is okay as long as Roe v. Wade is overturned. No sin is as grievous as not opposing Roe v. Wade.

It seems that way to me, too, and yet if it is overturned, each state will just decide on its own, and most will keep abortion legal. So, abortion isn’t going anywhere.

 

[Ender]

No, it is not like that. To be racist, you do not have to have power over the targets of your racism. But to be a bully you do. It’s in the definition.

Which definition is that?

1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate (Free dictionary)

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate or aggressively dominate others. (Wikipedia)

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions. (American Psychological Association)

Now, the Wikipedia definition is preceded by this: “bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power and (3) repetition over a period of time.”

While it is true that there is an imbalance of legal authority, a representative has absolutely no power whatever over the protesters. The protesters, however, do have power to affect the livelihood, and emotional and physical health of the representative. The imbalance in the power threatened to be employed is all in the hands of the protesters.

 

[Ender]

Oh, that’s no more true than Trump is from Mars!

All it takes is one example to disprove me. So find one. Give us just one example where a Democrat nominee to the Supreme Court was personally attacked like Kavanaugh was. Or Thomas. Or Bork. Let us see the support for your claim that both sides have done this. Are you really unfamiliar with how these nominations have played out in the past?

 

[Ender]

And it seems to me that many “conservatives” say anything is okay as long as Roe v. Wade is overturned. No sin is as grievous as not opposing Roe v. Wade.

Another variant of “So what? So are you.” Again the complete and utter lack of evidence is immaterial. The charge alone is sufficient.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Your newest justice has attacked all Democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...878f96be19b_story.html?utm_term=.e9d61cc1a43d

Of course, you will try to justify that. I’ve already posted a long list of Republican misconduct.

 

[Theo520]

First of all, you are using a stronger word than she did. Secondly, I deny that a response beyond what Maxine called for is her responsibility.

What are you talking about? Didn’t you read her quotes?
And you think ‘harass’ is too strong a word to describe what she asked her base to do?

Because of people like her, threatening and violent incidents against conservatives and Republicans are rising at an alarming rate.

 

[Ender]

It has been pointed out repeatedly that this approval process is not a criminal trial.

The claim is repeatedly used to suggest that standards of fairness and justice therefore do not apply.

Yet somehow that seems, to some, to be the required standard for considering the nominee.

I’ve been involved with this thread for some time now and don’t recall anyone actually suggesting this. But then, since I can’t prove that no one has ever made such a suggestion, perhaps we should just accept it as true despite the complete lack of evidence to support it. After all, that’s the standard we are being urged to apply to Ford.

It might be illuminating to consider hypothesis testing in science. The standard that you described is a bit similar standard that is applied in the advancing knowledge: it is the proof that an idea is false that is dispositive, whatever the prior supporting evidence. That is not seen by as unfair or unwise.

The claim that there are little green men living on Mars cannot be disproved. The fact that it cannot be falsified, however, in no way suggests it should be believed. It would pretty much be dismissed out of hand in the scientific community because of the total lack of evidence to suggest it is true.

This is pretty much the reverse of how we are expected to respond to Ford’s charge where it is the very fact that it is unfalsifiable that is taken to be its strength. Science does nothing to illuminate your position.

 

[Ender]

Of course, you will try to justify that. I’ve already posted a long list of Republican misconduct.

Let me repeat what I said. Perhaps reading it a second time will make it clearer.

“Give us just one example where a Democrat nominee to the Supreme Court was personally attacked like Kavanaugh was.”

The topic here is Supreme Court nominees, and how they are treated during the advise and consent process. So, again: just one example. Surely you can find one.

 

[dvdjs]

The claim is repeatedly used to suggest that standards of fairness and justice therefore do not apply.

It is not a claim, it is a fact.
And standards of fairness and justice still apply. They are just not necessarily the standards that apply in a criminal trial.

I’ve been involved with this thread

There are posters who have repeatedly indicated that Ford’s allegations should have gone to Md police rather than the SJC.

The claim that there are little green men living on Mars cannot be disproved. The fact that it cannot be falsified, however, in no way suggests it should be believed. It would pretty much be dismissed out of hand in the scientific community because of the total lack of evidence to suggest it is true.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not a scientific one and would not be pursued. In this case, the hypothesis is certainly falsifiable and the the claimed total lack of evidence is also falsifiable. Indeed, the Judge produced his diary to falsify the claim by showing that he was away every weekend (when he usually partied) during the summer of 1982 and could not have been at a gathering of the kind described by Ford. His diary, however, did show a gathering of that type on a Thursday.

 

[ConstantLearner]

The topic here is Supreme Court nominees, and how they are treated during the advise and consent process. So, again: just one example. Surely you can find one.

Surely I could if I wanted to hunt on Google, which I don’t. I didn’t see any Democrats harassing Kavanaugh. I think Ford lied, I think Feinstein delayed making Ford’s letter public, but I don’t think Democrats harassed Kavanaugh.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

First of all, you are using a stronger word than she did. Secondly, I deny that a response beyond what Maxine called for is her responsibility.

What are you talking about? Didn’t you read her quotes?
And you think ‘harass’ is too strong a word to describe what she asked her base to do?

Because of people like her, threatening and violent incidents against conservatives and Republicans are rising at an alarming rate.

Or, it could be righteous anger expressed by those who feel attacked. I hear that is now a justifiable defense.