The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Brett Kavanaugh

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Dark Matter » October 10th, 2018, 7:24 pm

Greta wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 7:12 pm
Gee, the Democrats sound so terrible - smearing, lying, betrothing trusts. Pure evil.

Thank goodness for the Republicans. They would never, ever smear, lie or betray trusts.

Obviously Kavanagh did as was accused. However, the powers-that-be have managed to cover up for his embarrassing past. That's politics. If there is a proper investigation in the future under the Dems in the future (if this administration allows them to govern again) then he may be impeached.

I don't think that will happen. My guess is that there will be a Trump equivalent to the Reichstag fire before either this or the next general election, perhaps starting a war to get a future election suspended so the nation can pull together behind the President in the war effort.
"Obviously"? Why do you say that?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8235
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Greta » October 10th, 2018, 7:43 pm

Too many people knew him as a wild boy. The main witness is reportedly highly credible and obviously was not mistaken as to his identity. To even try such an obvious snow job makes clear the deception.

Mind you, I'm not much keen on looking at the feral sexual behaviours of yesteryear through a modern #MeToo lens. They were different times. I am not sure how perfect judges need to be all of their lives as there are many decent elder people who did appalling things as young people. H

owever, lying to cover it up is not acceptable for a judge presiding over the highest court in the land. Then again, with D Trump fact checked during the election at 3% accuracy of statements, it seems times have changed again given that half of the population thinks that's fine.

GE Morton
Posts: 1119
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by GE Morton » October 10th, 2018, 8:25 pm

Greta wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 7:12 pm

Obviously Kavanagh did as was accused.
Obviously?

Possibly, but surely not obviously. Not when none of the other persons Ford claimed to be present at the gathering confirmed it, and not when the woman Ford said was her best friend at the time and was also present said she did not know Brett Kavanaugh, had never met him (not likely if they both attended a small gathering), and that Ford made no mention to her --- her best friend, remember --- of any assault.

The truth of a statement is "obvious," Greta, when the available facts are clear and confirm the statement --- not when they are absent, ambiguous, or disconfirming.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Fooloso4 » October 10th, 2018, 9:08 pm

DM:
The philosophy of politics should incorporate a review of facts with reason, something that is completely lacking when it comes to leftists opposing Brett Kavanaugh.
If you are going to argue that facts are important then you have immediately lost credibility with this non-specific, accusatory, broadside generality.
Fact: No one questions Kavanaugh's credentials. No one.
That is simply not true. The American Bar Association had doubts about his credibility, demeanor, and lack of candor in 2006, changing their rating from highly qualified to qualified. Following his recent testimony Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with those who criticized his temperament. The ABA withdrew its support for him and called for an investigation. In addition to questions of sexual impropriety, many people also questioned his temperament and impartiality. To pretend that no one questions his credentials is disingenuous and false.
Fact: His accuser requested anonymity, a trust that was betrayed in a last-ditch attempt to delay his confirmation until after the midterm elections.
She did request anonymity but she has not claimed that her trust was betrayed by anyone she confided in. In any case this has nothing to do with the veracity of her claim. A thorough investigation would not have delayed his confirmation until after the elections.
Fact: Democrats and their allies have a history smear campaigns to thwart nominations they don't like. (Consider where the term "Borking" someone came from.)
I thought you were interested in facts. A slogan is not a fact. What was the “smear”? The same Senators who rejected Kavanaugh approved Gorsuch, and many were not on in the Senate when Bork was rejected. This also ignores the fact that other Republican nominees have been approved.
Fact: Everyone Ford identified has provided a statement, under penalty of a felony, that they have no memory of the gathering. One even wrote a letter saying she felt pressured to change her story.
There were two people other than Ford who knew what happened, and both have a direct personal interest in not implicating themselves.
Fact: Contrary to her testimony, Ford is leftist political activist: Palo Alto University where she works is a SJW factory, she gained financially to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars and is regarded as a "hero" by her circle of friends.
Guilt by association? What are her leftist activities? In what way was she financially rewarded? Are you claiming that she made up the story? If someone else had been nominated she would have accused him?
Fact: Ford came forward only after carefully deleting her social media profile; and after carefully selecting left-wing attorney Debra Katz to represent her political interests; and after carefully scripting some dubious and sketchy supportive material including a lie-detector test (she could easily fool, giving her background) and vague notes from a 2012 couples-therapy session.
What difference does it make that she deleted her profile? Why should she have left herself vulnerable to attack? What were her political interests that led to her accusing him? Since when is a lie-detector test “dubious and sketchy”? Even if she could have fooled the test most of the senators said she came off as credible. Those who supported Kavanaugh who said they believed her fell back on a mistaken identity defense.
Fact: A person can be absolutely, 100% certain their memory serves them well and be absolutely, 100% wrong.
And so, Kavanaugh could be 100% wrong when he denied it happened. But the Republicans were dead set against an investigation to try to determine the truth.
More can be said, but it is clear that people here don't give a damn. They'd rather see the Constitution destroyed and a man's life ruined than due justice.
If justice was to be served a thorough investigation should have taken place. A majority of his record was not made available. The “investigation” was hampered. There are many more people who should have been interviewed, including Kavanaugh himself. All of this could have been completed before the election. It was obvious from the beginning that he was rushed through.

And here is a fact: he lied under oath. There were several people, including friends, who said he drank to excess and behaved badly when drunk. None of them were interviewed. He lied about the meaning of terms because they showed him in a different light than the squeaky clean image we wished to portray. He gave misleading information regarding underage drinking.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Dark Matter » October 10th, 2018, 9:18 pm

Greta wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 7:43 pm
Too many people knew him as a wild boy. The main witness is reportedly highly credible and obviously was not mistaken as to his identity. To even try such an obvious snow job makes clear the deception.

Mind you, I'm not much keen on looking at the feral sexual behaviours of yesteryear through a modern #MeToo lens. They were different times. I am not sure how perfect judges need to be all of their lives as there are many decent elder people who did appalling things as young people. H

owever, lying to cover it up is not acceptable for a judge presiding over the highest court in the land. Then again, with D Trump fact checked during the election at 3% accuracy of statements, it seems times have changed again given that half of the population thinks that's fine.
You’re ignoring the facts of the case. Nothing you say would hold up in a court of law. Even the prosecuting attorney who specializes in those kind of cases wouldn’t file. The only thing the accuser has going for her is her apparent sincerity. Period. I call it “apparent” because thought it was too animated and practiced to be believable (experts in the field of body language tend to agree, but I think it’s too subjective to make it part of any argument). There is absolutely nothing to disqualify Kavanaugh. Even the main witness’s witnesses wouldn’t corroborate her story and the accused’s history makes him far more credible and accusations of him lying under oath are unfounded and debatable at worst.

You said you’re not “keen on looking at the feral sexual behaviours of yesteryear through a modern #MeToo lens.” Yet, the evidence suggests that’s exactly what you’re doing. The “wild boy” you’re talking about graduated at the the top of his class, and no one does that in an “animal house” atmosphere.

It’s about facts, not feelings or Trump, but feelings is all you and other opponents of Kavanaugh have.

GE Morton
Posts: 1119
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by GE Morton » October 10th, 2018, 10:08 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 9:08 pm

That is simply not true. The American Bar Association had doubts about his credibility, demeanor, and lack of candor in 2006, changing their rating from highly qualified to qualified.
Yes, it did. But in 2018 it again rated him "Highly Qualified."
The ABA withdrew its support for him and called for an investigation.
No, it did not. The ABA's chairman wrote a letter urging a delay pending further investigation. It is not clear whether that letter had the support of anyone else in the organization. But it did not withdraw or downgrade its "Highly Qualified" rating.
In addition to questions of sexual impropriety, many people also questioned his temperament and impartiality. To pretend that no one questions his credentials is disingenuous and false.
"Credentials" does not embrace temperament and impartiality. It denotes written evidence of education and experience. A college degree and a verifiable work history are credentials; a pleasant disposition is not.

That doesn't mean temperament and impartiality aren't important qualifications for a judge. But they are only necessary when he is judging cases before him, to which he is not a party and in which he has no personal interest. They are not to be expected, much less demanded, when responding to lurid, unsubstantiated personal attacks. Impatience, intolerance, and anger are perfectly appropriate responses to such "fighting words."
There were two people other than Ford who knew what happened, and both have a direct personal interest in not implicating themselves.
Doesn't matter. The fact remains that if they don't implicate themselves then the charges are not corroborated.
Fact: A person can be absolutely, 100% certain their memory serves them well and be absolutely, 100% wrong.
And so, Kavanaugh could be 100% wrong when he denied it happened.
You're both right. So what do we do when the evidence is inconclusive --- assume guilt, or innocence?
But the Republicans were dead set against an investigation to try to determine the truth.
The FBI investigation interviewed every witness in any position to know the truth about what did or did not happen to Dr Ford.
And here is a fact: he lied under oath. There were several people, including friends, who said he drank to excess and behaved badly when drunk.
He may have. But sometimes lying is justifiable, and, indeed, morally obligatory.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Dark Matter » October 10th, 2018, 10:35 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 9:08 pm


That is simply not true. The American Bar Association had doubts about his credibility, demeanor, and lack of candor in 2006, changing their rating from highly qualified to qualified. Following his recent testimony Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with those who criticized his temperament. The ABA withdrew its support for him and called for an investigation. In addition to questions of sexual impropriety, many people also questioned his temperament and impartiality. To pretend that no one questions his credentials is disingenuous and false.
A half-truth is worse than a lie. What happened during his 12 years on the court? And Stevens has long been labeled, correctly, as the leader of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc, an activist judge.


She did request anonymity...
Nothing else matters.

What was the “smear”? The same Senators who rejected Kavanaugh approved Gorsuch, and many were not on in the Senate when Bork was rejected. This also ignores the fact that other Republican nominees have been approved.

How many Dems voted for Gorsuch compared to Reps voting for Dem nominees?

Half-truths are worse than lies.
There were two people other than Ford who knew what happened, and both have a direct personal interest in not implicating themselves.
Evidence?
Guilt by association?
In part, yes. It lends to her lack of credibility.
In what way was she financially rewarded?
A matter of public record.
Are you claiming that she made up the story?
It’s more likely than not.
If someone else had been nominated she would have accused him?
It’s more like someone else would come up with a similar story.

Those who supported Kavanaugh who said they believed her fell back on a mistaken identity defense.
Why do you think Trump won?
Fact: A person can be absolutely, 100% certain their memory serves them well and be absolutely, 100% wrong.
And so, Kavanaugh could be 100% wrong when he denied it happened. But the Republicans were dead set against an investigation to try to determine the truth.
[Ad hom]
If justice was to be served a thorough investigation should have taken place. A majority of his record was not made available. The “investigation” was hampered. There are many more people who should have been interviewed, including Kavanaugh himself. All of this could have been completed before the election. It was obvious from the beginning that he was rushed through.
More lies and half-truth.
And here is a fact: he lied under oath.
Already addressed.

[Ad hom]

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Fooloso4 » October 10th, 2018, 11:18 pm

GE Morton:
No, it did not. The ABA's chairman wrote a letter urging a delay pending further investigation.
Which means they had questions about his qualifications and could not support him without further investigation.
"Credentials" does not embrace temperament and impartiality.
A qualification, achievement, quality, or aspect of a person's background, especially when used to indicate their suitability for something. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/credential
The abilities and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job or activity, or proof of someone's abilities and [url]experience:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... credential[/url]
Doesn't matter. The fact remains that if they don't implicate themselves then the charges are not corroborated.
Of course it matters. The fact that they don’t implicate themselves does not mean that she was not telling the truth or that they are not guilty. If the senators believed her as they said they did then the right thing to do is to call for a thorough investigation.
You're both right. So what do we do when the evidence is inconclusive --- assume guilt, or innocence?
INVESTIGATE. It may still happen.
The FBI investigation interviewed every witness in any position to know the truth about what did or did not happen to Dr Ford.
The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh. They did not interview Ford. They did not interview those who came forward to testify as to his drinking problem. This was not a criminal investigation, it was a job interview. If there is no factual evidence to show that she was not credible, and most of the senators claimed they believe she is credible, or to show that her allegations were false, then there is doubt. This is a point that Flake kept coming back to, but instead of passing on a candidate over whom there is a cloud of doubt or insisting on a thorough investigation, he ignored that doubt.
He may have. But sometimes lying is justifiable, and, indeed, morally obligatory.
And what is they justification for his lying? What are the circumstances that make it morally obligatory for him to lie? This is the man who played a central role in the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath about a consensual affair.

Alias
Posts: 2722
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Alias » October 10th, 2018, 11:26 pm

And then the oh-so-pure-Judge-Brett can return the favour and grant - due to a little-known clause in the constitution, cut and pasted together from multiple articles - Trump divine right to rule for life.
Well, at least that should get up Spence's nose!

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8235
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Greta » October 10th, 2018, 11:36 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 9:18 pm
Greta wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 7:43 pm
Too many people knew him as a wild boy. The main witness is reportedly highly credible and obviously was not mistaken as to his identity. To even try such an obvious snow job makes clear the deception.

Mind you, I'm not much keen on looking at the feral sexual behaviours of yesteryear through a modern #MeToo lens. They were different times. I am not sure how perfect judges need to be all of their lives as there are many decent elder people who did appalling things as young people. H

owever, lying to cover it up is not acceptable for a judge presiding over the highest court in the land. Then again, with D Trump fact checked during the election at 3% accuracy of statements, it seems times have changed again given that half of the population thinks that's fine.
You’re ignoring the facts of the case. Nothing you say would hold up in a court of law.
Not coherent. If the evidence would not hold up in a court of law, why was the inquiry so heavily limited and locked down.

This is not a joke position - this is the highest court in your land, not some little local court or a corporate appointment. The standards have now been lowered by, as I noted above, I expect Trump and your Repubs to try to circumvent the democratic process anyway.

Stay tuned for the US's Reichstag moment. It would be interesting to watch how your lads rationalise the removal of your democracy. I expected a response from the religious lobby about Trump's "pu$$y grabbing" but pure silence. It's a new world where the conservatives have become radical and the progressives have become conservative.

I suspect the loss of democracy would be fine with you as long as it's your men Trump and Pence in charge.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Fooloso4 » October 10th, 2018, 11:52 pm

Dark Matter:
What happened during his 12 years on the court?
Good question. Most of that information was kept hidden from the committee.
And Stevens has long been labeled, correctly, as the leader of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc, an activist judge.
Whether or not he is a liberal has no bearing on whether what is said is correct. Do you know what he actually said? He originally supported him but changed his mind. Judicial activism applies to conservative judges as well.
Nothing else matters.
It does not matter whether Kavanaugh did what she alleged he did? The only thing that matters is that she did not want to go public?
How many Dems voted for Gorsuch compared to Reps voting for Dem nominees?
Have you forgotten about Merrick Garland? No one even got a chance to vote.
There were two people other than Ford who knew what happened, and both have a direct personal interest in not implicating themselves.
Evidence?
Evidence of what? That no one else knew what happened? What evidence do you have that someone else knew? Evidence that someone accused of a crime has a direct personal interest in not implicating themselves? Unless they feel remorse why would they confess?
Guilt by association?
In part, yes. It lends to her lack of credibility.
Except the senators did not question her credibility. Someone who has an interest in social justice does not lack credibility for that reason. Have you forgotten about the importance of facts?
In what way was she financially rewarded?
A matter of public record.
If you are going to make a claim then you need to back it up. Where can this be found the the public record and what does it say in the public record?
Are you claiming that she made up the story?
It’s more likely than not.
So, despite your little speech you have abandoned facts all together.
If someone else had been nominated she would have accused him?
It’s more like someone else would come up with a similar story.
Again, despite your little speech you have abandoned facts all together.
Those who supported Kavanaugh who said they believed her fell back on a mistaken identity defense.
Why do you think Trump won?
Mistaken identity?

If any question remained as to whether your concern is with the fact your ad hominem attacks are a sure sign that it is not.

GE Morton
Posts: 1119
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by GE Morton » October 11th, 2018, 1:13 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
October 10th, 2018, 11:18 pm

Which means they had questions about his qualifications and could not support him without further investigation.
No. It means the chairman had questions. But the organization did not withdraw its rating.
A qualification, achievement, quality, or aspect of a person's background, especially when used to indicate their suitability for something. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/credential
The abilities and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job or activity, or proof of someone's abilities and [url]experience:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... credential[/url]
Abilities, experience, achievements, aspects of background --- credentials --- are matters of fact. Temperament and impartiality are matters of opinion and judgment.
Of course it matters. The fact that they don’t implicate themselves does not mean that she was not telling the truth or that they are not guilty.
You're right. But it does mean that her story is uncorroborated.
If the senators believed her as they said they did then the right thing to do is to call for a thorough investigation.
The investigation with respect to Ford's and Ramirez's reports was as thorough as it could be. Everyone in any position to know what happened was interviewed. Those with mere hearsay "knowledge" were ignored, as they should have been. (Ramirez herself, BTW, admitted that "she can't be sure" that the person who allegedly exposed himself to her was Kavanaugh).
The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh. They did not interview Ford.
No, they did not, for the excellent reason that both had been thoroughly questioned by the Judiciary Committee only days before and the likelihood either would have anything new to say was nil.
They did not interview those who came forward to testify as to his drinking problem.
No they did not, for the excellent reason that how much boozing he did 35 years ago as a teenager is completely irrelevant. Had he been convicted of DUI, cited for drunkenness, or fired from a job in the last few years due to drinking it would have been relevant.
If there is no factual evidence to show that she was not credible, and most of the senators claimed they believe she is credible, or to show that her allegations were false, then there is doubt.
Yes, there is doubt, and there will always be doubt around this case. I agree she was credible (I watched her entire statement and testimony). I think she believed at least most of what she was saying. But memories can become distorted, embellished, dramatized over time. A molehill can become a mountain. The same is true for Kavanaugh's memories, of course. So credibility is not enough; some corroborating evidence is required. It is not up to an accused, however, to prove the accusation false. It is up to the accuser to prove it true. And the available evidence fell far short of that.
And what is they justification for his lying? What are the circumstances that make it morally obligatory for him to lie? This is the man who played a central role in the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath about a consensual affair.
A consensual affair occurring while he held office, not one occurring when Clinton was in high school. The justification for lying? To prevent a trivial, irrelevant, but politically exploitable incident from disqualifying a candidate from a job for which he is highly qualified, in every relevant respect.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Eduk » October 11th, 2018, 2:08 am

Out of interest how many people know he is guilty and how many people know he is innocent?
From my perspective it is one person's word against another. Certainly no reason to be sure of anything.
Unknown means unknown.

Steve3007
Posts: 5999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Steve3007 » October 11th, 2018, 2:53 am

Eduk wrote:Out of interest how many people know he is guilty and how many people know he is innocent?
From my perspective it is one person's word against another. Certainly no reason to be sure of anything.
In any case where it's one person's words against those of another (or one group's words against those of another group) we can never be sure of guilt. And since, in the eyes of the law, and with good reason, people are innocent until proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" then presumably in all such cases the jury must acquit? But it's that "beyond reasonable doubt" clause that leads to the problems, isn't it? Because opinions seem to vary widely as to what the word "reasonable" means there. Sexual assault cases are often one person's word against another. But they don't always result in acquittal (though they often do). If they don't, then the assessment of "reasonable doubt" has to hang on all kinds of messy, inexact considerations.

Anyway, the argument that's been going on here over the last few posts in the US evening, the Australian morning and the UK night is interesting.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8235
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

Post by Greta » October 11th, 2018, 3:05 am

My understanding is that the issue is less what happened all that time ago but the lies he told in a hearing just now and that is not appropriate for a person applying to have one of the most important jobs in the land for life.

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

Post Reply