Supreme Court

If the “Devils triangle” game that he played was a drinking game, how can you accuse him of perjuring himself??

Games have names that mean different things. I am sure that if we look at all games, some of them would be distinctly different within several groups.

And boofing is flatulence, yeah?

Some privileged wealthy fraternity boys in the 80s, discussing drinking games with names that can't be found anywhere other than in sexual scenarios.
And boofing, because farting or similar words were too risque and required a boof
pls

We should be worried about the wider implication of this issue. The idea that someone is automatically guilty because they were accused is frightening.

In the MeToo era, we have moved from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”. Yes, sexual assault victims must receive justice, but this must come after a comprehensive investigation. The idea that men are inherently guilty of assault because they are men is worrying.

Some people have joined the bandwagon (as expected), but we should be very careful. This could be your brother, husband, father or relative and his reputation + life could be permanently ruined.

Innocent until proven guilty must be protected. However, that does not take away from the fact that serious allegations have been made, which must be investigated. I found both Dr Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to be credible witnesses, so cannot tell you what happened, or didn't. That hasn't stopped many giving, politically-driven. assertions either way, when they don't have a clue.

False, serious allegations can ruin someone's reputation, as serious crimes can someone's life. That's why a full investigation is required.

Please remember that this is an appointment for life, taking decisions on key legal cases. It is not something to be taken lightly - if there is any truth to the allegations, the Judge cannot be appointed.

I don't think an isolated instance sexual assault should be disqualifying from the Supreme Court, so long as, if it is brought up (as it should be), the person is repentant. The issue is, Kavanaugh is alleged to have partaken in multiple heinous sexual assaults and harrassments, including with others, when given the chance he denied them, and this denial would carry much more weight if there wasn't a mountain of evidence that corroborates these allegations, multiple accusers, multiple people coming forth as witnesses, and Kavanaugh himself demanded no FBI investigation, begging the question: what is he hiding?. Ford risked her livelihood coming forth to gain nothing, implying too that she is telling the truth. I believe Kavanaugh is guilty and unrepentant, which *should* disqualify him from being a Supreme Court justice, since clearly his views of women and sexual assault are improper. Further, there is evidence to say he committed perjury, for instance, claiming 'Devil's Triangle' was a drinking game, although this isn't the most overt perjury since the term is colloquial and thus open to more variation, particularly by time and region, than 'normal' words

I agree. But if there is no truth to the allegations, the damage has still been done. He wont go back to living a relatively quiet life as a family man, with interests in basketball. He will always be remembered as the “rapist that got away”. Rape cases don't go away that easily. If he happens to get confirmed, whatever judicial decision he makes will be scrutinised. He would be challenged for having such a toxic accusation hanging over him.

Now, his case is very difficult. If he withdraws because of the stress of the frenzy, he would be instantly labelled as guilty. If he stays on and gets confirmed, he would be accused for not having remorse and being a predator. I cannot imagine his life and mental health.

This is why I am gradually leaning towards anonymity for accusers and the accused with private investigations esp with very high profile cases. Public cases tend to have a mob mentality, even when the verdict is not what is expected by the opposition.

He stood up for the second ammendment, that alone should get him appointed.

Dr Ford's allegation is not of rape.

Agreed, false allegations are extremely damaging, as is the mob mentality - both the believe unconditionally and she's a liar, with little evidence or investigation. Yes, it would have been much better for this to have been investigated without publicity, but we are where we are.

That rule would qualify quite a lot of people for the post. How woudl you select from those?

Weed out the Roe v Wade proponents.

Funny.

No worries.

But you make a good point. The convention means practically the judge's judicial abilities are not discussed in the hearings. Instead the nominees make a few comments about their families, career, and refuse to answer most things related to the law. Other than previous decisions where they might correct misunderstandings in the questions posed (e.g. Gorsuch corrected Franken on the absurdity rule within statutory interpretation, based on Franken telling Gorsuch he mis-decided a case and that Gorsuch misunderstood the law: which is just pantomime from a non-specialist Senator).

Is the Senate hearing (or interview) a session to corner a nominee to confirm how the nominee may vote in major cases or one to understand the Judge’s grasp on the law and their support of it?

It seems the recent hearings appear to be attacking the nominees for past judicial decisions or assumptions that the nominee may wreck the Court.

The hearing does not really serve a purpose, in my opinion. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the nominee cannot say how they would vote in future cases. The Judicial Committee is comprised of some lawyers who have experienced legal life, and many laypeople -- in other words, they do not have legal knowledge which even remotely compares to the nominee. The nominee is always a leading jurist, a real intellectual heavyweight.

They do attack previous comments made in public, past decisions either as counsel or a judge. The two latter are things the Committee is not equipped to deal with, for the reasons I just provided. They are not judges and as counsel you are bound to represent your client's interest. Sometimes the Committee will make inferences from written arguments the nominee made as counsel a decade earlier, but you don't necessarily believe in those arguments when you make them.

That is interesting. I guess the major aim would be the opponents to portray the nominee as unstable, reckless or even dangerous.

In the case of Kavanaugh and the US, it seems the hearing appears to serve as an advice and consent tool. Even without the consent, the President can still put in his judicial picks to the Supreme Court.

Sometimes it is merely to get some air time by challenging the other party's "man". Al Franken and Gorsuch is a really egregious example of this.

Senate needs to confirm the nomination. It is not enough that they were consulted.

That rule would qualify quite a lot of people for the post. How woudl you select from those?