SCOTUS Watch

[malchior]

This is really well said.

There's a fundamental problem with the bi-partisan certainty that Kavanaugh is either a privileged, sexually assaulting, gang raping monster or that Kavanaugh is an incredibly accomplished, hardworking jurist who's being victimized by decades old allegations with little corroboration.

I don't know how anyone can be certain of either of these conclusions.

Agreed - about all we can say with certainty is that he was privileged. We are after all seeing just tiny vignettes into his life. Those glimpses just seem to confirm biases many harbor about privileged people. Whether that is because they are accurate or just happenstance is impossible to figure out without a lot more.

[Isgrimnur]

And Oliver Cromwell (for better or worse) is a key person in establishing certain principles of liberty in British-American history, and as far as I know he doesn't have a sex abuse scandal.

just an 'oppressing and murdering the Irish' scandal

As far as I know Kavanaugh has not yet been accused of oppressing and murdering the Irish. Maybe that will come out next week.

Well, if he did, it's an internal matter.

Kavanagh or Kavanaugh is a surname of Irish origin, Caomhánach in Irish Gaelic.

[Pyperkub]

My conservative Uncle posted this on Facebook:

Every Man & Woman on Facebook should post this today:

I stand in solidarity with
Brett Kavanaugh.

My first comment was that I felt the word 'keg' was missing

[malchior]

Apologies for the double post, but WTF?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Tuesday that the supplemental FBI report on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will not be made publicly available.

“We will get an FBI report soon. It will be made available to each senator and only senators will be allowed to look at it. That’s the way these reports are always handled. These background checks from the FBI to the Judiciary Committee. And we will be voting this week," McConnell said.

Not that anything he does surprises me anymore, but this is crazy. They're going to have to produce something.

I get that the report might have confidential information but this 'the people don't matter' act is getting really old.

[LawBeefaroni]

This article in the Atlantic echoes my feelings nearly exactly.

Mr. Fed posted it on FB.

Great article. I agree with the author's conclusions, although not entirely with the route that he got there. But the passage I liked best is this one:

Over the weekend, I listened to a number of podcasts in which liberals mocked Kavanaugh as an entitled white male refusing to face accountability for what he had done. I find the tone of these discussions nauseating—undetained by the possibility of error. I, like Jeff Flake, am haunted by doubt, by the certainty of uncertainty and the consequent possibility of injustice. I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about Oliver Cromwell’s famous letter to the Church of Scotland in which he implored, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I also spent some time with Learned Hand’s similar maxim, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.

Agree with the gist of the article but quoting Oliver Cromwell? It's a touch tone deaf. I guess he wasn't nauseated by the fact that liberals were mocking Kavavaugh as an entitled white male so much as the idea that someone would mock entitled white males.

I'm not entirely sure I see your point. His point is that a lot of people opposed to Kavanaugh are basically taking it as a given (or are irrationally certain) that the accusations are true. He agrees that the balance of the evidence (at least on the Ford allegations) are in Dr. Ford's favor, but he's cautioning that a little humility is in order, especially when the evidence is necessary old and spotty. And Oliver Cromwell (for better or worse) is a key person in establishing certain principles of liberty in British-American history, and as far as I know he doesn't have a sex abuse scandal.

The point is that Cromwell was an entitled as fuck white male. "Liberals are mocking this man as an entitled white male, it's nauseating! Here's a quote from a famous entitled white male to rein them in!"

It's a tone deaf selection. That's all.

[Chaz]

It's better to provide cover if nobody can prove that there was disqualifying stuff found in the investigation. This way, any R senators who were looking for a path to yes just say "I looked at the report, and there's was no new conclusive information in it, so based on his record, I'm voting to confirm Brad."

Never mind all the other disqualifying stuff that we already saw.

[Skinypupy]

.@GeoffRBennett just reported on @MSNBC that he and @JuliaEAinsley have learned that while Dr. Ford's legal team has repeatedly reached out to the FBI, the FBI does not currently have plans to interview her. A source familiar says the WH feels her public testimony was sufficient.

Le sigh...

[Holman]

This article in the Atlantic echoes my feelings nearly exactly.

Mr. Fed posted it on FB.

Great article. I agree with the author's conclusions, although not entirely with the route that he got there. But the passage I liked best is this one:

Over the weekend, I listened to a number of podcasts in which liberals mocked Kavanaugh as an entitled white male refusing to face accountability for what he had done. I find the tone of these discussions nauseating—undetained by the possibility of error. I, like Jeff Flake, am haunted by doubt, by the certainty of uncertainty and the consequent possibility of injustice. I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about Oliver Cromwell’s famous letter to the Church of Scotland in which he implored, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I also spent some time with Learned Hand’s similar maxim, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.

Agree with the gist of the article but quoting Oliver Cromwell? It's a touch tone deaf. I guess he wasn't nauseated by the fact that liberals were mocking Kavavaugh as an entitled white male so much as the idea that someone would mock entitled white males.

I'm not entirely sure I see your point. His point is that a lot of people opposed to Kavanaugh are basically taking it as a given (or are irrationally certain) that the accusations are true. He agrees that the balance of the evidence (at least on the Ford allegations) are in Dr. Ford's favor, but he's cautioning that a little humility is in order, especially when the evidence is necessary old and spotty. And Oliver Cromwell (for better or worse) is a key person in establishing certain principles of liberty in British-American history, and as far as I know he doesn't have a sex abuse scandal.

The point is that Cromwell was an entitled as fuck white male. "Liberals are mocking this man as an entitled white male, it's nauseating! Here's a quote from a famous entitled white male to rein them in!"

It's a tone deaf selection. That's all.

Honestly, I think the reason people keep reaching for that Cromwell quote is that you never get another chance to say "bowels of Christ."

[Default]

How about a rousing

[Fitzy]

At least we can count on the president to stay classy during these difficult times.

[LawBeefaroni]

But he is sure to note that Kavavaugh's daughters are beautiful. Poor, shattered, life-ruined Kavavaugh.

[Skinypupy]

And the bar goes lower, yet again.

Jesus.

[$iljanus]

At least we can count on the president to stay classy during these difficult times.

And his supporters are a real treat to watch as they cheer him on.

[RunningMn9]

This article in the Atlantic echoes my feelings nearly exactly.

Mr. Fed posted it on FB.

My problem with these sorts of things is that folks like the author only ever seem to want to exercise caution when they are the ones that stand to lose. If the situation was reversed, that caution would be right out the window. So while I can agree in principle, I know that in practice this is more or less a plea for the other side to slow down in a way that the author would not if the circumstances were reversed. These moments of intellectual clarity never occur to the author when the shoe is on the other foot.

[GreenGoo]

What annoys me is that Kavanaugh has already shown how unfit for the job he is whether he's guilty of sexual assault or not. Which the author agreed with, so who gives a crap about what people think about whether he's guilty or not? It's not like he's going to jail, or even be charged, and people on opposite sides of the aisle hate each other for a lot less than a maybe sexual assault. People supportive of Kavanaugh will continue to be, and those who aren't don't need a sexual assault excuse to be critical of him.

The only people that it matters to are senators who are at least pretending to be concerned. The author should just name those senators as his target audience and be done with it.

Kavanaugh is not the right man for the job. That's true without the allegations. His life won't change 1 iota because of these allegations, so the "harm" of jumping to conclusions in this case is illusionary. It will be just as cushy and privileged as it ever was, so now we're arguing over whether it's ok that people decide for themselves whether a person is guilty or not? Jesus, that applies to a billion other aspects of our lives as well, but I don't see the author writing about the dangers of jumping to conclusions about Trayvon Martin or even George Zimmerman. As rmn9 points out, he only cares that people are jumping to conclusions about his boy Kavanbrah.

Is it good advice to be cautious and think critically? Of course. Do I need to be condescended to and lectured by a conservative dudebro of Kavanaugh's? Give me a break.

[El Guapo]

This article in the Atlantic echoes my feelings nearly exactly.

Mr. Fed posted it on FB.

Great article. I agree with the author's conclusions, although not entirely with the route that he got there. But the passage I liked best is this one:

Over the weekend, I listened to a number of podcasts in which liberals mocked Kavanaugh as an entitled white male refusing to face accountability for what he had done. I find the tone of these discussions nauseating—undetained by the possibility of error. I, like Jeff Flake, am haunted by doubt, by the certainty of uncertainty and the consequent possibility of injustice. I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about Oliver Cromwell’s famous letter to the Church of Scotland in which he implored, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I also spent some time with Learned Hand’s similar maxim, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.

Agree with the gist of the article but quoting Oliver Cromwell? It's a touch tone deaf. I guess he wasn't nauseated by the fact that liberals were mocking Kavavaugh as an entitled white male so much as the idea that someone would mock entitled white males.

I'm not entirely sure I see your point. His point is that a lot of people opposed to Kavanaugh are basically taking it as a given (or are irrationally certain) that the accusations are true. He agrees that the balance of the evidence (at least on the Ford allegations) are in Dr. Ford's favor, but he's cautioning that a little humility is in order, especially when the evidence is necessary old and spotty. And Oliver Cromwell (for better or worse) is a key person in establishing certain principles of liberty in British-American history, and as far as I know he doesn't have a sex abuse scandal.

The point is that Cromwell was an entitled as fuck white male. "Liberals are mocking this man as an entitled white male, it's nauseating! Here's a quote from a famous entitled white male to rein them in!"

It's a tone deaf selection. That's all.

It's just a little weird and anachronistic to throw a "entitled white male" label vs. liberals on a mid-17th century leader. Like, he kind of was, but like, no more or less than any other political leader of the times.

Then again, he did help write the "Solemn League and Covenant to Own the Libs", so there's that.

[Chaz]

The problem is that the GOP has already decided that all the other stuff besides the sexual assault isn't disqualifying. The stuff in the documents they won't release isn't a problem, which is why they don't need to gather all the documents. Nothing in them matters. His partisan rant last Thursday was fine because it was righteous indignation, was true because those lousy Dems, and he declared loudly that he'd be on their side, which is their whole goal. All the evasive answers and half truths and refusing to answer questions isn't a problem because it's practically policy for this party and this admin.

So they've already made themselves okay with literally everything else that most on the left see as obvious disqualifying stuff. Once you remove that, all you're left with is the sexual assault allegations. All they need to do is create enough doubt around those, and they're completely clear to put this guy on the bench.

[GreenGoo]

Sure, I understand what you're saying. It's frustrating though, because they are *pretending* like sexual assault matters, and how it might make a difference, so let's investigate, but not really, and we won't tell anyone what they find in any case.

Tell me that McConnell could walk in on Kavanaugh groping an intern and he wouldn't try to cover it up instead of immediately disqualifying him. I dare you.

He'd also manage to blame it all on the Dems somehow. And then the right-leaning media engine would kick in to provide him with cover, after the fact. And yes I'm aware that the left-leaning media engine does the same thing at times.

[GreenGoo]

Because there has been a lot of talk about being fair minded, I just want to say that I was extremely skeptical initially when I heard an anonymous source accuse Kavanaugh of assault. When she came forward (or it was leaked and she immediately stood behind her words in the letter), I started to have doubts.

Then I watched and read Ford and Kavanaugh discuss it, and that pretty much turned me completely around on the subject.

Sure, Ford could be the best actor in the world and Kavanaugh could be unable to control himself in the face of unfair and maligning accusations, but come on, who really believes that? What is the probability that that is true? Tell me that you can watch the two of them discuss the accusations and not come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is most likely guilty of the things Ford accuses him of doing.

The idea that you can't heavily, heavily suspect that something is true unless you can prove it in a court of law is ridiculous. Which seems to be what the author and others are suggesting. Kavanaugh is not being criminally prosecuted and on trial, the burden of proof in this case is significantly less, and the harm that being wrong would cause is comparatively minor.

What do I believe is true? That Kavanaugh did exactly what Ford accuses him of doing. Would I convict him in a court of law? Probably not. But this isn't a court of law, it's a job interview, and you'd have to be insane to risk hiring him with these serious and credible allegations against him. Unless of course the fix is in and you're going to hire him whatever happens. Then, have at it I guess, but it certainly illustrates how corrupt the process has become for the GOP.

To me it makes McConnell and company not just bad people who's politics I don't agree with, it makes them literally, visibly corrupt.

Maybe that's not news to some of you but it's eye opening to me, and that he'd be so blatant and obvious about it is vexing.

Gorsuch was confirmed in 4 days following the release of thousands of documents.
Kavanaugh can't get out of committee and the GOP are withholding thousands of documents.

There is no legitimate reason that Kavanaugh must be the next SCOTUS justice, and Gorsuch shows that a less controversial nominee would not generate this humiliating circus. The idea that the Dems would stonewall *any* nominee in retribution for Garland is clearly false (although who could freakin' blame them, that was some seriously dirty pool), which is one of the typical defenses used to rationalize sticking with Kavanaugh.

Dump Kavanaugh, pick someone else, someone that more Dems could vote for, and then it doesn't matter what happens in the October elections.

Is it too much to expect that politicians do the right thing? That's not rhetorical. There are other options between ramming a bad candidate through versus the other extreme viewpoint that they are screwed after October. It doesn't have to be winner take all, and losing seats doesn't have to mean that you can't nominate a successful candidate. You don't even need a bipartisan candidate, you just need one that is not outrageously partisan with credible sexual assault allegations against him.

[Defiant]

, and then it doesn't matter what happens in the October elections.

Does it ever?

(Elections are in November. )

[Defiant]

Wow. According to the Federalist, it is better that a person guilty of sexual assault be confirmed on to the Supreme Court than that ten innocent people not be confirmed onto the Supreme Court.

[Holman]

Wow. According to the Federalist, it is better that a person guilty of sexual assault be confirmed on to the Supreme Court than that ten innocent people not be confirmed onto the Supreme Court.

They lost me at "rightful place."

It was in the subtitle.

[GreenGoo]

, and then it doesn't matter what happens in the October elections.

Does it ever?

(Elections are in November. )

It was late.

[Holman]

And his supporters are a real treat to watch as they cheer him on.

Several moments after Trump describes Kavanaugh’s treatment as “abuse” and decries guilty until proven innocent, the crowd goes into “Lock her up!”

[Skinypupy]

And now the GOP has moved on to the "she's a slut so she couldn't have been assaulted" stage of denial. Grassley released a letter from Dennis Ketterer (a DC-area weatherman, apparently), which reads like a cross between Handmaid's Tale and Penthouse Forum.

Ketterer's fucked up statement is here

Someone please make it stop.

[noxiousdog]

GreenGoo,

Memory is really weird. There's no reason to believe Ford has an accurate recollection of the event. It's likely she was assaulted, but the details from 30 years ago just can't be remembered by the human brain. She couldn't even come up with Kavenaugh's name during the therapy sessions. Research backs this up repeatedly. Even recent eye-witness testimony is often suspect.

That being said, Kavenaugh is a horrible choice for Supreme Court. He's angry, partisan, and bends the truth at will. That's about the worst resume you could possibly have.

[Defiant]

She couldn't even come up with Kavenaugh's name during the therapy sessions.

I thought her husband said that she had told him his name at the time, so I didn't get this impression at all, unless you've read something that points otherwise?

[Unagi]

She couldn't even come up with Kavenaugh's name during the therapy sessions. Research backs this up repeatedly. Even recent eye-witness testimony is often suspect.

Where did you get that from, I had heard pretty much the exact opposite.

Additionally, while our memories can be horrible at recalling everything about a given event or day, there are details that can be "never lost" from an event.

For instance, I had a horrible wipeout skiing once in college. I absolutely have no idea what Day it was. Pretty sure what year it was. I have no clue what jacket I had on, or what brand my ski's were at the time - but I can tell you FOR SURE that I was there with my buddy Bob. And that he and I rode the chairlift up after the wipe-out. Who I was with on the ski hill was a part of this memory that will just never be in question.

I imaging the "who was on top of me" part of her memory isn't one that she will just fill in with someone else as time goes by.

[Unagi]

She couldn't even come up with Kavenaugh's name during the therapy sessions.

I thought her husband said that she had told him his name at the time, so I didn't get this impression at all, unless you've read something that points otherwise?

(sorry, hadn't read everything when I made my post) - but yeah, that was my understanding as well.

[RunningMn9]

Memory is really weird. There's no reason to believe Ford has an accurate recollection of the event.

There's some reason to believe that the day stood out more to her than to anyone else at the party though, no? And while that doesn't vouch for it being a completely vivid account - for more most people at the party, it would just be another Thursday night at Squi's with some brewskis. The chances that they would remember anything from the night are likely far less than her. Whether BK would be more or less likely to remember the night would depend on how frequently he may have done stuff like this, or how much alcohol he drank (or whether he even did it).

I'm not suggesting certainty that he did it, but the issues with eyewitness memory (especially 30+ yr old eyewitness memory) apply to all involved. But in context, the moment was more important to some than to others.

[YellowKing]

I remember bullying events in high school (25 years ago), and I could tell you exactly who did it. And those were far less traumatic than a sexual assault.

Sure human memory is fallible, but it's not impossible. Particularly with signature events.

[noxiousdog]

I have little doubt she was assaulted. I have significant doubt she was assaulted by Kavenaugh mostly because there have not been a significant number of people that have been able to corroborate (none really) even though folks have been interviewed.

Washington Post

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”"

They are also refusing to turn over the therapy notes to anyone else.

[Archinerd]

I remember bullying events in high school (25 years ago), and I could tell you exactly who did it. And those were far less traumatic than a sexual assault.

Sure human memory is fallible, but it's not impossible. Particularly with signature events.

My tires were slashed in a road rage incident 15 years ago. I also remember a lot of details and this incident was also far less traumatic than a sexual assault.

I have my fingers crossed that at least one of the Republican Senators decides to do the right thing.

[Archinerd]

I have little doubt she was assaulted. I have significant doubt she was assaulted by Kavenaugh mostly because there have not been a significant number of people that have been able to corroborate (none really) even though folks have been interviewed.

Washington Post

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”"

They are also refusing to turn over the therapy notes to anyone else.

As has been said many times here and elsewhere. Even if he isn't guilty of sexually assaulting her, he is still not Supreme Court worthy. As evident from his hearing, he has no respect for the truth or law.

[noxiousdog]

I'm not suggesting certainty that he did it, but the issues with eyewitness memory (especially 30+ yr old eyewitness memory) apply to all involved. But in context, the moment was more important to some than to others.

Sure. But that's also how we come up with Roswell.

I'm just thinking that he's got a pattern of getting horribly wasted and being a dick. You'd think there would be more corroboration if he a serial rapist as opposed to just a dick.

[noxiousdog]

As has been said many times here and elsewhere. Even if he isn't guilty of sexually assaulting her, he is still not Supreme Court worthy. As evident from his hearing, he has no respect for the truth or law.

That was in my original statement. He's almost the exact opposite of what you'd want in a SC judge.

[noxiousdog]

Oh, and let's not forget that Ford was really drunk when it happened too.

[El Guapo]

I have little doubt she was assaulted. I have significant doubt she was assaulted by Kavenaugh mostly because there have not been a significant number of people that have been able to corroborate (none really) even though folks have been interviewed.

Washington Post

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”"

They are also refusing to turn over the therapy notes to anyone else.

Those notes don't mention Kavanaugh by name but they're consistent with Ford's account (and I'm not sure I see a reason why the therapist would write down the names of the boys rather than a description like that). But from Kavanaugh's account there were only two people present in the room besides her - Kavanaugh and Judge. Others have corroborated Kavanaugh's general behavior at the time (drinking to excess, becoming aggressive while drunk). And it seems significant that Judge basically went into hiding after all of this became public, and that neither Kavanaugh nor the GOP have any interest in calling Judge - it suggests a belief that Judge's testimony would be less than helpful for Kavanaugh's story.

Though I suppose we're not arguing over significant differences here, insofar as we both agree that there is material doubt about whether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford, and I think we both agree that notwithstanding that (and for a variety of reasons) Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

[El Guapo]

Oh, and let's not forget that Ford was really drunk when it happened too.

This is incorrect, at least per her testimony. She testified that she only had one beer that night.

You may be confusing that with the "exposed penis" allegation of one of the other accusers, who said that Kavanaugh put his penis in her face. She has said that she was pretty drunk at the time.

[noxiousdog]

Though I suppose we're not arguing over significant differences here, insofar as we both agree that there is material doubt about whether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford, and I think we both agree that notwithstanding that (and for a variety of reasons) Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

Agreed. It was just a comment on accuracy of memory as they mentioned it repeatedly in a 538 podcast.