squ1d wrote:Rommie wrote:Well I think it's because this isn't a trial. This is basically a job interview. As such the standard is not the same.
But yes, it's pretty fucked up that the victim can say she wants an FBI investigation and they're like "eh, let's not."
That is some weird job interview, where uninvestigated criminal accusations are introduced from decades ago, judged in a media circus by people that don't have the correct job description, without the entire formal process in place to deal with such accusations, the chance for discovery, etc, etc. Isn't that why we have all those rules?
If it sounds like I'm defending Kavanah - I'm not - at least not intentionally. My personal opinion is that he's a scumbag and he did it. But where is the rule of law here? This is a ridiculous precedent to set (if it hasn't been set already).
This is just my two cents worth. It's a not a criminal proceeding because, as Rommie observed, it's really a job interview. One with a really odd interview process but none the less it is indeed a job interview. As such the "rule of law" and "due process" are not strictly enforced. And you get weird shit like Senators lamenting that it's just terrible what we are doing to that poor entitled victim Brett Kavanaugh.
But, part of what these proceedings are also intended to do is help establish whether the candidate for the highest judicial seat in the U.S. is a person who is worthy of that seat. We want him to have the moral character and the devotion to the law that will supersede personal or political agendas. We are asking him if he has the honor, morals, integrity, and the honesty to be the kind of judge we want on that bench.
Brett Kavanaugh, IMO, showed the world yesterday that he is not that man. What we saw was an angry, belligerent, paranoid, alcoholic like, self-entitled asshole ranting about how his life was destroyed by these allegations. The worst thing that will happen to him if he doesn't get the job is that he will go back to being a Federal judge on the appellate court. Hardly a life-destroying situation. Yet, he kept insisting that the allegations against him had destroyed his life and his families life. None of them will spend time in jail. It won't cause him to lose his current job. At worst a few people he knew might stop talking to him. Oh, and maybe a lawyer or two will ask to have a different judge when they are representing victims of sexual assault. Again, not what I would call life destroying events.
He repeatedly was in contempt of Congress and refused to answer simple yes or no questions with anything resembling a direct answer. He attacked one senator and asked her if she ever drank and blacked out as an answer to her asking him that question.
He was boorish, whiney, rude, evasive, and at times he just outright lied. Frankly, even if his judicial record showed that he was overwhelmingly liberal I would not consider him fit to sit on the Supreme Court.
