Is it extremist to support Kavanaugh?
I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it.
To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud.
If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him.
If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
Who would like to sit on trial for things you said 40 years ago? And have a mass media misinterpret everything out of context? It's fucking primitive.
Who wouldn't lose their composure? Only a cool, level headed liar like Bill Clinton could pull that off.
I was also deliberate in my pointing-out that many of the questions asked of him could be perceived as being in bad faith. Whether that's so is quite subjective. Your "inside joke" is other people's "description of a sex act". For the same reason we can't truly know Kav's innocence or guilt, we can't know whether the jokes are harmful or not.
I want to point out a distinction that I made, that I'm not sure you're making: I don't discredit Kavanaugh because he "lost his cool". I too would most certainly be crying in that situation, without a doubt. But when Leahy pressed him, repeatedly over a span of excruciatingly long minutes, to explicitly request and comply with an investigation, and Kavanaugh dodged and bent over backwards to avoid doing such a thing, I found it difficult to understand how a person interested in the truth could behave in that way. A SCOTUS judge should be wiling to be investigated, and expected to survive such a thing.
These allegations were held in the pocket as a political football instead of being handed over to a bipartisan committee and investigated by the FBI from the get go.
Feinstein's unethical manipulation of this allegation in the handling of Dr. Ford and outright lies about her alleged fear of flying in order to prevent her being forensically interviewed, like a normal case, are inexcusable.
The Democrats had two months to hatch a plan while Kavanaugh's life got turned upside down in less than a week. That's a legal ambush, complete with an angry mob. It's not just at all.
Because it was an obvious trap and he was right to avoid stepping into it.
By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.
This makes me angry every time I read it. A failed job interview usually means you can just go back to whatever it was you were doing before you applied, none the worse for wear.
A job interview shouldn't require you to defend yourself against scurrilous personal attacks which result in you becoming an unemployable social pariah if you fail.
This was not a job interview.
(1) There will be millions of people against any Supreme Court nominee
(2) The bar for dismissal of a Supreme Court nominee is accusations, even without corroboration
Premise (1) is bound to be true, and premise (2) will be fulfilled if we decide Kavanaugh should not be nominated. The logical conclusion is thus likely:
(3) Any of the millions of people against a Supreme Court nominee can come forward with accusations without corroboration and block their nomination
While I think Kavanaugh's defensive and angry response is another valid issue, we could then just add a 3rd premise to the above where the uncorroborated claims would have to be met with anger by the nominee to be disqualified. It still seems like a screwed up system, with that third premise installed.
The problem isn't supported much the accusations (though Ford gave powerful testimony) as his response. He is condemned by his own words. He was evasive, dissembling, maudlin, vengeful, conspiracy minded, hair splitting, seemingly conveniently forgetful, enraged at being questioned, sly, prevaricating, devious. In a word, dishonest. Not the qualities one wants for a judge on the highest court in the land.
The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced.
Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than finding the actual facts.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about "why they're asking:", and he's being asked questions that are intentionally constructed to lead to dark places, trip him up, and paint him in a negative light.
Nevertheless, I think any layperson can detect "what they're asking". A person interviewed for SCOTUS, in my view, must still give a straight answer to a question asked in bad faith. Ill intent on the part of (D) committee members does not justify intentionally incomplete answers that intentionally fail to address "what they're asking". Even if the questions are meant to derail him, that doesn't justify omission or disearnestness.
Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people.
An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand.
A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a...
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...