World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Guilty until proved innocent?
message 51:
by
Scout
(new)
Oct 24, 2018 09:02PM
Are you saying that Kavanaugh's character is in question?
reply
|
flag
Scout wrote: "Are you saying that Kavanaugh's character is in question?"I would certainly have thought so. Even if you discount the allegations, his reaction to those public accusations was not the reaction of a man in control of himself.
I'd like to think a judge appointed to the highest court in the country had good self control.
Leonie wrote: "Scout wrote: "Are you saying that Kavanaugh's character is in question?"I would certainly have thought so. Even if you discount the allegations, his reaction to those public accusations was not t..."
Indeed. He was petulant, childish, livid, terribly irrational, and not to mention paranoid to the point of suggesting he was a victim of a conspiracy. This is not a man who should be trusted with any kind of power. To suggest he'd be somehow better on the bench than in the hot seat is naive as all hell. People don't suddenly change, relax or mature when you add power to the equation.
Leonie summed up my position well. I think a judge has to be able to separate himself from the issue at hand and stay in control of himself. Had he simply denied the allegations calmly, I would be on his side.
Imagine that you've served years of your professional life with an impeccable reputation. Imagine that you're innocent of unfounded accusations made against you, that your character is being attacked. Imagine that your loved ones have received threats, that your family is in jeopardy. Imagine how angry and outraged you would feel in this situation. How could you not respond as he did? This wasn't a courtroom situation, this was a man fighting for his reputation and his personal life with all of America watching. This was personal.Now think about Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court. Totally different situation, right?
How could you not respond as he did? This wasn't a courtroom situation, this was a man fighting for his reputation and his personal life with all of America watching. This was personal.My comeback would be how could you respond as he did? And still want to be taken seriously as a valid candidate for high office?
This is the reality of public life. This man aspires to public life, and (sadly) these kinds of accusations are common for those who aspire to public life.
You can be personally threatened, but still behave with dignity and self control. Many politicians and public figures have demonstrated this. And this is most definitely a public political position.
So you're saying that he'll act the same way as a justice. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Scout wrote: "So you're saying that he'll act the same way as a justice. Guess we'll have to wait and see."I think there's a significant possibility that he may not be able to separate his personal feelings from the objective reasoning required of a judge. And when you consider that he is now a judge of the highest court in the US, it makes you wonder.
It's a high pressure job. He has his reaction to pressure on very obvious public record.
I'd cite his long record as a judge with impeccable credentials. This doesn't make me wonder.
I agree with Ian through all his comments in this thread.The hearings about Kavanaugh were not about a criminal trial, which is the only presumed innocent application. It is a protection of criminal law and nothing else. That is why civil trials have a lesser burden of proof because it is not about going to prison, it is about compensation for damages. Yes, in civil trials, you still have to prove your case, but only by a preponderance of the evidence and not to the level of beyond reasonable doubt.
The Kavanaugh hearings were neither a civil nor criminal hearing. It was an administrative review by the legislature. Essentially, Kavanaugh was being considered as a job applicant. Within that, there are special considerations about judges and lawyers, of which Kavanaugh would be well aware. No proof necessary - their ethical rules require that they not give the appearance of impropriety.
Setting aside whether any of it was true or false or even fair - his character and behavior as he presented himself to the public and the legislature makes him inappropriate to be a S.Ct. Judge. He got the job, but he didn't deserve it. With only 12 years experience on the bench, he has a lot more to learn about the law and being a judge.
To me, sadly, people like Trump, Kavanaugh, and various other politicians, regardless of party affiliation, have put a bad "face" on our country and our legal system in front of the rest of the world.
Lizzie wrote: "I agree with Ian through all his comments in this thread.The hearings about Kavanaugh were not about a criminal trial, which is the only presumed innocent application. It is a protection of crimi..."
I agree with this, 100%! Anybody claiming his actions were not a demonstration of his true character has another thing coming. It is when pressed and under stress that we are most true to ourselves. And when pressed about his past and allegations, he demonstrated all the grace and dignity of an over-privileged 8-year old throwing a massive tantrum. To me, it was the latest insult to our collective intelligence, in a long line of them.
People react to personal attacks on themselves and their family by becoming emotional. The confirmation hearings were a totally different setting than that of a Supreme Court hearing. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Scout wrote: "People react to personal attacks on themselves and their family by becoming emotional. The confirmation hearings were a totally different setting than that of a Supreme Court hearing. We'll just ha..."What personal attacks on him and his family are you referring to? He was accused of sexual assault by multiple women. And his response was beyond emotional, it was vindictive and extremely hostile. These are not the actions of an innocent man, they are the actions of an entitled prick. He also lied repeatedly.
To assume he'll be somehow different when presiding over court cases strikes me as dangerous and naive. That's basically saying that bad people will behave if you just give them the power to decide the fates of others. That's the last thing you do with someone like Kavanaugh.
Can't speak on the influence of the accusations on his tenure on the bench, but I would assume that tenure would be different than his response in the hearings if his tenure on the lower courts prior to the nomination indicated otherwise...It's fair to criticize how he handled the accusations, but to assume he's somehow going to behave differently on the Supreme Court than he behaved on the bench during his prior years of service because of those accusations is a little foolish.
Bad behaviour under pressure is usually an indication of better controlled bad behaviour when not under pressure. Pressure does not bring out a different nature, it merely removes the ability to disguise it.
Actually, time will tell all. A SC justice is a visible role.
I was responding to Matthew's question about personal attacks on Kavanaugh's family.
The Me Too movement has become an issue for Joe Biden. Is he sexist or a sexual predator? It seems he's being treated as one, which is ridiculous. The Anita Hill thing happened in another era. Okay, he's handsy, but he's not a predator. He's a product of his times. Maybe this is finally the time to apply some common sense regarding Me Too.
The more I hear about it, the more he just sounds like a touchy-feely guy. I mean, he is old and comes from a time when people weren't so sensitive. As for the accuser who said he smelled her hair, since he was behind her when he did it, I can't help wondering if he's just breathed heavily at the time and she misconstrued the sound of the air rushing through his sinuses as "sniffing,"And I also couldn't help thinking we were going to hear some claiming the accuser supported one of the other presidential candidates with the implication being that she was trying to knock him out of the race...then we get it!
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-b...
Biden invaded the personal space of some women. Okay, we saw that. Are there any sexual allegations against him? Not that I've seen. For heaven's sake, people should have some common sense, which has been lacking in other cases, such as Kavanaugh's.
Maybe with Biden, it's not so much what he did or didn't do, but the fact he doesn't "get it." The Me Too movement has spotlighted a real and serious problem, and when it comes to his door, he starts joking about touching a young boy...that doesn't just show a lack of empathy, it crossed into ultra-creepy.
He doesn't "get it." That implies that he's not getting in line with some politically correct agenda. What the heck? He's done nothing wrong.
No. I'm with you that it feels like the accusations feel blown out of proportion. To me, where he doesn't get it is that he's making jokes about a serious issue. At that point, it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. There are women legitimately being violated, and he thinks it's something to laugh at. Children do get molested, and he's cracking jokes about touching a boy. That's what he doesn't get...there are real issues outside of the cavalier accusations that we should be looking at fixing, and he thinks the whole thing is a joke.
Scout wrote: "Biden invaded the personal space of some women. Okay, we saw that. Are there any sexual allegations against him? Not that I've seen. For heaven's sake, people should have some common sense, which h..."Are you aware that dozens more complaints have been investigated against him since he was confirmed? And we know for a fact that he lied during his confirmation, and these allegations indicate he did plenty more we didn't know about at the time. Don't see how common sense is lacking here, just due process.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/politi...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/dozen...
J.J. wrote: "No. I'm with you that it feels like the accusations feel blown out of proportion. To me, where he doesn't get it is that he's making jokes about a serious issue. At that point, it doesn't matter wh..."Well said! Flippancy is generally an indication that the person is totally capable of committed inappropriate acts, mainly because they don't take things like boundaries and consent seriously.
Is Biden a sexual predator? Has he committed a crime? I've seen no evidence of that. Have you?
No, I have not, and I never said he was either. I've seen only seven women claim he inappropriately touched them and made them uncomfortable for not respecting their personal space. That is all I know and all I'm going by.And some of these women have said that his explanation was flippant and dismissive, which shows he missed the point. And that's not defiance of a PC agenda, it's showing that he doesn't understand how his actions violated boundaries and respect - which is precisely what one would expect from someone who commits such acts.
To be clear, I believe wholeheartedly that Trump and Moore are all sexual predators, and possibly Kavanaugh. But that's because both the accusations and their response to them was extremely telling.
If you believe that Biden isn't a sexual predator and he's committed no crime, then what's your problem with him? He's said that he realizes that times have changed, and so he has changed with the times. A couple of light-hearted comments means what? Absolutely nothing. He's just being himself, which is good.
Who said I have a problem with him? I posted links about Kavanaugh, who you were saying was unfairly treated. I am basically saying he wasn’t, and that Biden and him are not similar cases.I also agree with JJ that Biden’s video response showed that he didn’t understand or appreciate why people were offended.
If there is a problem to be had with Biden, it should be that on the Hill he was known as "the Man from MBNA", because he was in the pockets of so many banks. There is also the thing about him being a plagiarist, but why would intellectual ethics be necessary for a Presidential candidate?
Scout wrote: "Is Biden a sexual predator? Has he committed a crime? I've seen no evidence of that. Have you?"My opinion is the same as it's always been: Let's look at evidence before judging.
My only criticism is that he's sticking his foot in his mouth and it doesn't look good for him. He would be better off just shutting up and waiting for it to blow over. Heck, even denying the allegations and going on a tantrum about how the Sanders campaign is making this up would be a better reaction than cracking jokes about touching boys.
If there's no proof that a man has committed a crime, then the court of public opinion shouldn't find him guilty, and his career shouldn't be curtailed - whether it's Kavanaugh or Biden. I'm so sick of this politically correct bs being used against men who have long, unblemished careers.
In all fairness, Biden's career is not exactly unblemished.Plagiarism:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...
As VP, he pressured the Ukrainian President into firing the prosecutor who was investigating an oil firm his son, Hunter worked for:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-hou...
Scout wrote: "If there's no proof that a man has committed a crime, then the court of public opinion shouldn't find him guilty, and his career shouldn't be curtailed - whether it's Kavanaugh or Biden. I'm so sic..."What do you consider proof in the court of public opinion? Do multiple women coming forward claiming a man sexually assaulted or touched them not constitute proof? In a court of law, that is considered hearsay. But in the court of public opinion?
And this is how sex offenders work. Their lives seem otherwise normal and unblemished, and then we learn from their victims that they had a dirty little secret. Just look at Bill Cosby, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, and others. In every case, these were men with so-called "unblemished careers".
And I know from personal experience that when sex offenders are revealed, no one says "boy, we sure saw that coming!" I also know from personal experience that they are not turned on unfairly. In fact, denial and vilification of the victims are entirely too common and people seem to care more about damaging the person's reputation than they do the victims.
The only exception I can think of is Donald Trump, a man who's career was defined by sleaziness, fraud, criminal behavior and abusiveness. I don't think anyone was surprised when 23 women came forward to accuse him of behavior he openly bragged about doing.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Two women accuse you today of sexual assault. It's your word against theirs. Because you've been accused, you're guilty in the court of public opinion before any evidence is presented. People believe that predators vilify the victim, so you can't defend yourself without looking guilty. You're a normal guy, have led a good life, but that doesn't count. It makes you look more guilty. You're innocent, Matthew, but how do you prove it? How do you prove it?
It is usually impossible to prove you did not do it when the accusation comes many years later. The only real way to prove you did not do something is the alibi - you were somewhere else so you could not have. Otherwise you are forked because you cannot prove a negative. I know there are always some reasons why they do not complain at the time, but I think there should be more requirements than the accusation if there has been a serious delay.
I agree, Ian. I notice that you didn't reply to my post, Matthew.
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday night referred to her colleague Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a “very decent” person as she lamented what she characterised as the “dysfunction” surrounding the confirmation process for new justices."
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday said Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a “very decent” person.
“My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals,” Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg has criticised the chaotic confirmation process surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court in the past, and she echoed these frustrations on Wednesday."
REF: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ru...
Presumably RBG has first hand experience of BK.
The problem lies in the political nature of the nomination process, where there seems to be a desire to get certain social changes made through the back door, particularly related to things like abortion. As for Ruth, she could hardly say one of her fellow justices was a nasty horrible person. Chances are BK can be quite a reasonable person, though. He just holds political views others don't share, and he may have had rather unfortunate youthful experiences.
Well, Ian, RBG surely could surely have chosen a more neutral description for Kavanaugh. She chose to say that he's a very decent person (not just decent) and to criticize the confirmation process as dysfunctional (an opinion I share.) Women who look up to RBG as a role model will probably ignore her endorsement of Kavanaugh and her criticism of the confirmation process. In their eyes he was accused, therefore guilty without proof. A travesty.
I think any reasonable person would agree the confirmation proess was dysfunctional, in fact so far Congress has largely been dysfunctional (in my opinikon anyway). The Dems still haven't got over Hillary's losing.
From gang-rape to false accusation, one of the most dramatic reversals lately: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019...
This woman admitted to lying. All along, I've held that the Me Too movement advocates believing accusers without proof, which is wrong. In Kavanaugh's case, there was no proof. Even the accuser's friend failed to back up her claims. That's not to say that sexual assault is okay. Definitely not. But women can weaponize claims of sexual assault against innocent men, as seen in Nik's link. Just because a man is accused, it doesn't make him guilty, and the accusation itself can ruin a man's career. It's just as difficult for a man to defend himself against claims of sexual assault as it is for a woman to prove her case. I know I'm probably seen as betraying my sisters, but a woman is the best person in this case to say that a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that Me Too ignored that presumption in some cases.
As Reagan would say, "There you go again." New allegations against Brett Kavanaugh when he was a freshman in college have been reported. One of the women says she doesn't recall the incident. Sound familiar? Kavanaugh's former accuser's attorney, Deborah Katz, told CNN last year that Blasey Ford does not want Kavanaugh impeached, even if Democrats take control of Congress. That's all I need to know about her veracity.
Why was Katz, an attorney, busy saying things like that to CNN? Has someone paid off Ford? I don't think anyone can draw conclusions on this. Either the initial testimony was true or it was not, and we can form an opinion on that, but from then on, in my opinion it gets murky.
The NYT have made a mess of this.REF: Twitter: https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/statu...
Indefensible behavior on display.
Nothing came of this allegation; thus, Kavanaugh remains as a Justice, which he should, lacking as ever any proof of misconduct.
And I was seeing the NYT essentially doxxed the whistleblower in the Ukrainian phone call situation...they're not exactly behaving like a professional news organization lately...
