Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisco255 | Hacker News Reader

We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. In the meantime, the Democrats skewered a man for every inside joke he made in his High school yearbook with his buddies. They were picking apart his actions as a child. They weren't asking questions related to the allegations. They were trying to assassinate his character. That's fucked up I don't care who you are.

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.

View on HN

My comment was specific and deliberate in presuming his innocence, which, to reiterate, I do.

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.

Not if all standards of due process and normal jurisprudence were thrown out the fucking window.

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.

> 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

Because it was an obvious trap and he was right to avoid stepping into it.

>>We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims.

By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.

> But this is a job interview

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.

Ugh, he'll still be a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment.

That's not the sum total of his life. His neighbours won't look at him the same way. His coaching life has come to a complete end - no parents of young girls are going to be comfortable with him coaching them, and Harvard University has already terminated his lectures.

This was not a job interview.

While that's true, and I personally am leaning towards believing Ford, there's also these premises we must accept:

(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.

Or better yet, let’s consider him not getting the nomination because he lied under oath. Irregardless of where you stand on the Ford allegation (which is currently he said / she said, and nothing more, despite me believing what she said), it’s easily proveable that Kavanaugh lied under oath.

I have a great counter-example for you: Gorsuch.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com