Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I know. That case right now consists of lacking secondary supporting evidence when it seems reasonable there should have been at least some no matter how slight it was. That doesn't mean I am dismissing her or saying I think she IS lying. But there's a case to be made.

What about the “skis” event on K’s calendar?

[_Chap]

...You keep deliberately attempting to tone down what happened by using the term 'job interview'.

Er, nope. See my last post. In fact, I don't think I have referred to a 'job interview' at all on this thread. Did I?
...

<No attempt to produce evidence that I did refer to the Kavanaugh hearing as a 'job interview' on this thread; no expression of regret for telling a flat lie about my posts.>

This is the second time in the last few days that someone has told a direct lie about what someone else has said in a discussion of Kavanaugh; previously we had Water Dog saying that people had called for the abolition of the Senate, when nobody had.

On that occasion, as on this one. we have had no retraction of the lie, and no apology for misleading board readers. The poster just tries to renew the attack from a different angle. This is a worrying (post-Trump?) trend.

[_Chap]

most of us are tired of you promoting the idea that the presumption of innocence is a virtue reserved exclusively for a court room.

When else do you apply it in your daily life? To a used car salesman? Nope. To an investment salesman? I hope not. To a guy about whom you have heard stories of inappropriate behaviour who wants to take your daughter to a party? Hell, no. If you are in the supermarket and the lid of a jar seems loose, do you presume its contents are harmless because they have not been proved to be tainted? Nope again. You reject it, because you can't accept even a tiny risk of eating contaminated food.

In such cases, you exercise the precautionary principle: Choose another jar without a loose lid.

And so on. Appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court is a time for the precautionary principle to be exercised to the utmost in order to protect the integrity of the court. And Kavanaugh was by no means the only qualified candidate.

Maybe because here on planet Earth, you incorrigible human being, your absurd examples only make sense to the terminally blunt? But hey, if you feel the need to compare buying a used car with selecting a Supreme Court nominee then, well, there you are.

- Doc

If people exercise the precautionary principle (as opposed to the 'presumption of innocence' principle used in criminal courts) in a series of relatively trivial decisions in everyday life, then there is all the more reason for using it in making the momentous decision as to whether a person may safely be made a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Because the decision as to who should be made a Justice of the Supreme Court is vastly more important than buying a used car. So one should be vastly more cautious about whom one appoints.

[_Some Schmo]

Maybe because here on planet Earth, you incorrigible human being, your absurd examples only make sense to the terminally blunt? But hey, if you feel the need to compare buying a used car with selecting a Supreme Court nominee then, well, there you are.

If people exercise the precautionary principle (as opposed to the 'presumption of innocence' principle used in criminal courts) in a series of relatively trivial decisions in everyday life, then there is all the more reason for using it in making the momentous decision as to whether a person may safely be made a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Because the decision as to who should be made a Justice of the Supreme Court is vastly more important than buying a used car. So one should be vastly more cautious about whom one appoints.

One would think you wouldn't have to explain that. This was another in a long series of his posts I just rolled my eyes and moved on. It's pretty often I don't believe he believes his own BS.

[_Chap]

It's pretty often I don't believe [DrC] believes his own ____.

Maybe my memory is more rosey than reality, but I recall that he was not always like this. Whatever the reason, I'm sorry for the change that seems to have taken place.

[_Maksutov]

It's pretty often I don't believe [DrC] believes his own ____.

Maybe my memory is more rosey than reality, but I recall that he was not always like this. Whatever the reason, I'm sorry for the change that seems to have taken place.

Doc fell under the Bro spell of the Dog. Had to rise up and defend the poor privileged frat boy from the wicked feminist. I'll still fight for Doc but the Dog is a lost cause. When you put Trump before country and honor, you're dead to me.

[_Some Schmo]

Maybe my memory is more rosey than reality, but I recall that he was not always like this. Whatever the reason, I'm sorry for the change that seems to have taken place.

Doc fell under the Bro spell of the Dog. Had to rise up and defend the poor privileged frat boy from the wicked feminist. I'll still fight for Doc but the Dog is a lost cause. When you put Trump before country and honor, you're dead to me.

When you argue in bad faith, as Cammie so often finds himself unable to resist, you lose credibility. We sometimes see flashes of honesty from him, but lately, he posts to inflame rather than inform. It's transparent. The only person he's fooling is himself (I suppose the idiots who like his BS will embrace it readily as well).

I don't know why he does it, nor do I care. The point is that he's a worthless interlocutor, because he's shown himself to be untrustworthy in conversation (of course, sometimes he's just blatantly wrong). I refuse to respond to his nonsense seriously, and am often surprised by posters I respect seeming to take him at his word.

[_subgenius]

If people exercise the precautionary principle (as opposed to the 'presumption of innocence' principle used in criminal courts) in a series of relatively trivial decisions in everyday life, then there is all the more reason for using it in making the momentous decision as to whether a person may safely be made a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Because the decision as to who should be made a Justice of the Supreme Court is vastly more important than buying a used car. So one should be vastly more cautious about whom one appoints.

Again, you clearly have extended a presumption of innocence to Dr Ford - why?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because the decision as to who should be made a Justice of the Supreme Court is vastly more important than buying a used car. So one should be vastly more cautious about whom one appoints.

*rubbing temples*

Because the decision as to buy a $500k is vastly more important than buying a Lego set.

Because the decision as to buy a Premier League team is vastly more important than buying a football.

Because the decision as to buy life insurance policy is vastly more important than buying a scratch ticket.

Incredibly thick examples aside, I don't know why you would think political parties would give two flying "F"s what the opposition thinks. The Left appoints like-minded individuals to the court, and the Right does the same.

*in before EA claims the Wise Old Latina and Ginsberg are moderates*

I'm genuinely bemused that posters on this board think Trump would appoint anyone that the Democrats would approve of? That's an impossibility. And if the American Left doesn't like they're more than welcome to win a damned election? Trying to tank a nomination based off #metoo accusations is dumb and it's incredibly bad politicking.

But I might as well be telling a mule that he's not a tiger. The Left is gon' do what it does which is a flawed approach to winning elections.

eta: In other words, politics is just a contiuation of war by other means.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

In terms of the distribution of opinion in Constitutional theory, liberals that make the bench are moderates. In terms of the partisan split of the courts, they are on the left with Kagan and Breyer as more moderate. Pick your criteria.

If science was decided by a 9 person panel, the academic equivalent of global warming skepics has picked 14 of the last 18 deciders. What do you call the moderate position then? It depends on what group you are talking about. Law professors? Politicians? The public? Republicans get half of all appointments, or more, and they are increasingly inclined to promote people from an organization that itself is increasingly radical. What's "moderate" in that sense is shifting in real time.

To the actual argument at hand, I would not jail someone if there was a 50% chance they were lying about committing sexual assault. But I wouldn't hire them either. That there is a distinction at all between a criminal trial and a job interview is lost on some people.