Your opening post is very poorly stated. I gather you think the SCOTUS has been getting out of hand ever since the Constitution was adopted in 1787. — Bitter Crank

No question that the OP was slop, but generously interpreting it, there was some truth to it. His initial point did make the point that the Constitution itself never provided that the Supreme Court was meant as a Constitutional Court, empowered with the ability to strike down laws as unconstitutional. They decided they had that power in 1803 in Marbury Madison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison . The notion that a court has the power to strike down democratically passed laws is not universally accepted in Western nations today (the Dutch provide their courts no such power and the Finns have a legislative committee evaluate for Constitutionality for example). Jefferson was staunchly opposed to allowing the Court that much power:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." http://www.answers.com/Q/What_did_Thomas_Jefferson_say_about_judicial_review.

Constitutions are not "sacred" documents like the Ten Commandments--carved in stone and handed down from heaven and valid forever. They are working documents designed to address the perceived problems of establishing government at a given time. — Bitter Crank

And the counter to this position, again quoting Jefferson, "The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

What you have done is just what you argued against, which is to make the Constitution sacred in the sense that what it is said to say is the highest law of the land, untouchable by democratic effort. The Justices, under this model, are vested with the power to say what the Constitution says, giving them the power of the gods, to decree what the law that 100s of millions of Americans must live under. Unless you impose some rule that restrains the Justices (like limiting their interpretation to original intent or some other rule), then the Justices can in fact twist and shape their interpretation however they please.

The Kavanaugh fight is evidence of the absurdly powerful role the Court plays in American society, with the left trying to arrive at whatever way, democratic or not, to change the rules to select an all powerful Justice who will swing the Court. The speak of amending the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college so that Republicans can't elect Presidents who will choose Justices. They speak of eliminating equal Senators for each state so that the Senate will not be Republican. They speak of removing Republican Presidents and Republican selected judges through impeachment. The stakes are high and they want their person in power, which means to me that the Court simply has too much power and should never have embarked on its mission to set policy for the American people.

If the net result of this whole mess is that the Court lose it's reputation as being fair and honest, then I say all the better. It should never have been placed where it is, and the day the democracy can assert actual control over the law of the land, all the better.

Oh, dear. I hope you don't start calling me a snowflake, Sir/Ma'am or whoever the person behind your alter-ego of "Hanover" is. Anyway, if you've followed my posting here, then I suppose it bears repeating that I'm a disabled individual due to mental health. As much as I'd like to pull myself up from my bootstraps, my metaphorical "back" isn't in great shape, and never will be. Hence my lamentation, wallowing, reclusiveness, escapist tendencies, and resignation from life. — Posty McPostface

And I do respect that, which brings up my callous but true conclusion, which is that if you are disabled to the point where nothing can be done about it, then what do you ask I (or anyone) do other than feel bad for you? I can share my insights, be nice, be mean, make jokes, pontificate, or whatever, but you are telling me that you have but one leg and will never be able to run. Well, I'm sorry about your one leg. What else do you seek?

I've lived for a good portion of my life as a recluse from society. My idealized dream is to live alone in some forest away from people and their enviousness, deceit, lack of trustworthiness, two-facedness, and whatever you can insert here. — Posty McPostface

Your consistent attempt to instigate intimate social interaction here by openly revealing and discussing the personal details of your life belies your claim that you wish to live as a hermit without social interaction. It sounds like you have limited social interaction and you therefore don't have long-term friends, work friends, church friends, or other sorts of friends you'd make by just exposing yourself to the world, and that lack of friendship causes you some amount loneliness. Your general pessimism also isn't terribly conducive to forming long lasting friendships because there's nothing appealing about it.

You don't just get to declare yourself pessimistic, hopelessly passive, misanthropic, and socially isolated as if that's the way things must be, Just decide to change and change and stop being lazy and accept responsibility for your state of affairs. If, though, all of this is out of your control and you're just telling us you're a one legged person forced to hop about ten steps behind the rest of us your whole life and it really sucks, then I'll cry for you if it makes you feel better.

Your hypocrisy objection is a tiresome ad hom. Assuming I rushed to judgment with Weinstein but not with Kavanaugh, that'd make me wrong with Weinstein and not with Kavanaugh.

Would you just stop? — frank

Everyone here is acting like rights afforded criminals in criminal court are just some strange oddity inserted in antiquity for some purpose now lost in time. Those rules are there to assure fairness and a trusted result, and it makes as much sense to use them in criminal court as it does in any other proceeding where the object is the discovery of truth.

Yes. Every person in a position of trust with a vulnerable person should have a background check, and every such person credibly accused of a sexual crime at any time should be suspended until thoroughly investigated. — unenlightened

What questions do you propose be on the local Sunday school teacher's application? Should it ask detailed questions about juvenile acts 35 years prior, even if there were never an accusation of it?

I don't think he did it, if by "think" you mean there's sufficient proof he did it. The age of the accusations make the memories impossible to trust and the lack of corroboration (by other witnesses or physical evidence) make the claims unsupported. The whole looking into the eyes of the accused and the accuser and having been able to divine the truth (which many here have suggested they're able to to) is just so much reading tea leaves.

The proposition that childhood behaviour is relevant to the judgement of an adult's character in no way implies that juvenile behaviour ought to be considered as relevant to an adult on trial for one's actions. The adult goes to court on trial for one's adult actions not for one's character. — Metaphysician Undercover

And why this double standard? We should assume that the purpose of a criminal investigation, trial, and sentence is the betterment of society. If we've concluded that one's character from juvenile bad acts is grounds for the disenfranchisement from certain highly trusted privileges of society (and the ones currently enumerated are Supreme Court Justice and schoolteachers), why block our courts from considering that in criminal matters. I just want a safe, clean society for myself and children, and I'm having difficulty understanding why our laws only allow us to ferret out certain types of dangerous scoundrels. If what I did in high school makes me a now 52 year old unfit to serve as baseball coach, soccer coach, cub scout leader (all of which I did in years past), then I should be excluded. Let's have some process to ferret out evil and mark the demons among us so that we're not subjected to these people. I was hoping our criminal justice system would do that, but it's apparently ineffective for that purpose.

My post didn't actually say that. I said I'd allow him to be a schoolteacher even if he did it.

But others here opposed to him have said they'd have allowed him to be a Justice even if he did it, but were only opposed because he lied.

If Kavanaugh was a schoolteacher, I would expect him to be suspended, and if he wasn't, my children would not go to that school. But you are happy to send your children to his court? — unenlightened

I'd have no problem trusting my kids when young with him. Regardless, the guilty "if I would harbor concerns with them tending my daughter" standard is an irrational standard. It justifies finding guilt based upon hunches and feelings of creepiness.

You can't fire a school teacher for 17 year old misdeeds by the way. They have actual legal rights to their job. The majority of the testimony wouldn't be allowed at the teacher's hearing, if it even got to the there being a hearing.

Do you propose delving into the ancient past of every school teacher to arm up every parent who might one say have a run in with the teacher?

Do you think it'll be harder for you guys to say Justice Kavanaugh than it was for you to say President Trump?

Sometimes it's better just to have a result even if it's not the one you want just so you can have some cloture.

What kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is. — Purple Pond

I never understood this question. If the only thing that counts as evidence is something physical (i.e. something you see, hear, touch, smell, or taste), then the only thing you can know is physical. So, if I hear a voice from the great beyond calling my name, declaring himself God, and even doing what appear to be miracles, then all I can know from that are those physical manifestations. I would have no reason to assume an underlying non-physical entity any more than I do now when I experience physical phenomena. What I would seek to do is reconsider what I thought to be the physical laws in existence and alter that to account for this new phenomenon.

For example, if I were to find a material that instead of becoming a gas under high heat, it became more solid, I would not assume a supernatural force, but I would seek to find a physical explanation for it, even if it meant altering my prior views of certain physical laws.

The problem with the inquiry is the lack of clear definition of what constitutes physical and non-physical (or natural and supernatural). It seems to me that the real difference between the two when dissecting how words are used is that natural events are those that we can predictably observe and usually replicate, whereas supernatural events are those events that sporadically occur, cannot be replicated, and for some very odd reason cannot be recorded because we never seem to have a camera or recorder around when we need it, and if we do, the recording is fuzzy, blurred, or filled with static, like when they try to capture pictures of the elusive Bigfoot.

It takes 2/3 of the Senate to impeach. I'd think they'd go after Trump first. Maybe if one party gets 2/3 majority one day, they'll impeach every opposing judge, senator, and congressman. Why not?

Kavanaugh may very well be innocent of the assaullt, but he is guilty of defending this innocence with a partisan rant. — Relativist

And who finds his comments inappropriate other than those who were already his opponents? He has the right to defend himself. You don't get to lob whatever you want at someone no matter how abusive and think you have the right to avoid a similar response. Maybe you have a different standard than me, but I fully expect to be attacked if I attack, regardless of how lofty one's station is in life I attack.

I don't agree. Judging one's character on one's parents' character would be wrong, but one's childhood is definitely relevant in all forms of psychology, so it ought not be dismissed in judging one's character. — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess we ought reverse all laws excluding the consideration of juvenile history in adult court.

This all about Abortion and the votes it gets for and against and math, and has been from the start. — Rank Amateur

And therein lies the problem. When the Court started finding new rights, it became a super-legislature.

I thought they wanted to see whether he's lying about his high school behaviour, to determine his credibility. If one cannot accept responsibility for one's own past actions, how could that person be accredited to the Supreme Court without destroying its reputation? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they wanted to know if he tried to rape Ford back in high school. The goal post shift is now, "even if" his behavior was far less than attempted rape, and even if the behavior of a minor should not be imputable to a now 52 year old man, he's not qualified to be a Justice because he didn't admit to and apologize for his ancient misbehavior.

And there's even more that that, as what's now being submitted now that Ford's credibility is in question, is that "even if" he did nothing at all, he should withdraw because at this point it all seems unseemly.

How about we set forth a rule as it exists in every court of law across the country that says that juvenile acts cannot be used to attack the credibility of a witness? It seems we've focused heavily upon what most likely consider entirely irrelevant, but now we're interested in whether he's been dishonest about something that is irrelevant.

The real purpose of the FBI investigation is to appease Senator Flake because he's from a left leaning state, and his insistence upon it gives him cover to vote for Kavanaugh because he can now show he's not a rubber stamp for the Republican party. There is no non-political purpose for this investigation, which should not be a surprise, considering the Senate is an openly political institution. The Republicans want the man confirmed, which means that we should expect the purpose of the investigation is to obtain confirmation.

When's the last time you complained to your employer that being passed up for a promotion was punishment? — Benkei

If I were passed up on a promotion based upon false allegations of sexual impropriety in the workplace, for example, that would be an HR issue that I would vigorously address. In Georgia, the law presumes damage when slander relates to one's profession.

I would also expect that if I were in a politically charged workplace where one faction wanted to promote me and another didn't, and I wanted the position, and my supporters wanted me in that position, I would fight for it if I thought I could prevail.

SCOTUS has a special position in society where we can and should expect exemplary behaviour because the trust in the judiciary ought to be more important than a single person's career path or indeed partisanship which underlies his ridiculous nomination in the first place. — Benkei

He was chosen by Trump because of his conservative ideology and he has been submitted to a political body for consideration per the Constitution. If this were simply Kavanaugh and his naked ambition, the President or the Senate could end this whole thing. They've not. Those in charge of his promotion want him to continue fighting for it, so he is.

As ssu points out, Kavaugh's openly partisan conspiratorial outbursts are immediately disqualifying. Of course, nearly all judicial Supreme Court hearings are political to a degree, but that Kavanaugh was so explicit and outspoken, lashing out to such a hyperbolic degree, means that any lawyer arguing in front the of SC has to take into account what he said. Any preponderance to neutrality is out the window. — Maw

This is the "even if" argument now being proposed. That is, even if the Ford allegations were bullshit, Kavanaugh is disqualified because he denied it improperly. Even if it's all bullshit, he should withdraw to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. Even if it's all bullshit, some people remain unconvinced. My position is if it's bullshit, it's bullshit, which means that's the question we ought continue focusing on, not conceding it's not true but then arriving at other reasons why it doesn't even matter if it's not true.

How are the Democrats benefited by a delay? — frank

If they can delay and eventually deny his confirmation, they'll hope to either receive a less conservative option in the second round or they'll hope to block the second person until after the new Senators are sworn in after the mid-terms, which they hope will be Democratic majority. The idea is that every day another conservative justice is not sworn in is a good day.

They also feel a political need to obstruct due to the significance of the role, understanding that the Supreme Court has positioned itself as the final arbiter of right and wrong on right versus left political matters. Their constituency demands obstruction regardless of merit due to their underlying belief in the fundamental righteousness of protecting progressive judicial policy.

The purpose of the investigating is clearly only to delay.

He whines about being a victim of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit, — ssu

I found his defense powerful and effective and the responses of his opponents more whining about the unfairness of not being able to pick the candidate of their choice. The institution that has been destroyed is not the Supreme Court, but the Senate for exploring the high school behavior of a 50+ year old man.

If the honorable and not guilty man (as opposed to an obviously innocent one) has been wrongly accused and can not shake the accusation, then he should gracefully withdraw from consideration. Why should he take himself out of consideration? Because the Court is much more important than Judge Kavanaugh--or any other nominee.

In the last year, a number of men have stepped aside (or been ejected) from their positions on the basis of allegations of "sexual misbehavior" that were not given a thorough hearing or examination. I am sure these guys were more than slightly angry, but they didn't have the opportunity to vent in front of a congressional committee on live TV. — Bitter Crank

This is a bit absurd isn't it? If you are accused and you cannot convince others of the falsity of the accusation, you should accept punishment under the idea that the system is holier than the individual? There is nothing honorable about a person who fails to defend himself and fight and there is nothing honorable about a system that honors such conduct.

So long as I can levy a charge that cannot be disproved, I can control the world under your system. Whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty. Do you really adhere to such a principle? Even if you do, should you be charged with a crime you did not commit, I'd defend you over your objection, even if meant bringing great dishonor to the patrol officer on the street all the way to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Would you expect less?

Perhaps in a similar situation Hanover the candidate for Supreme Court Justice would spring up from his chair and leap up to hit one of those slimy Democrat senators for damaging your repution and family and for the political hit job they have made? That would get judge Hanover quite a following, you know — ssu

Is this responsive to something?

Not to loose your cool (or temper) just like Bret "Bart the beer-lover" Kavanaugh does.

There's an old Finnish saying: "That dog yelps, which (the) stick hits" — ssu

Yeah, well regardless of how the Finns might evaluate it, if someone accused me of a rape I didn't commit and it was damaging to my reputation and family, I might say something other than "I'd prefer the fine gentlewoman from Maryland to refrain from her misstatements as they are quite distracting." To be sure, I'd expect a volatile reaction from a legitimate accuser if she should be attacked as a liar and should her past be brought before the world to evaluate.

While I'd agree that voting for judges via a representative body could work if it isn't a two-party system, direct voting would be terrible. — Benkei

In Georgia and I believe a majority of the states, all judges are directly elected by the people. That includes both trial courts and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court of the state. Some states have hybrid systems, where the judge is initially appointed and then the people can vote either to retain the judge or get rid of him. In Georgia, judges are non-partisan, meaning they don't run as either party. Other states are entirely partisan, where a judge lists himself as Democrat or Republican, runs in the primary to win the candidacy for the party, and then runs in the general election. You may remember Roy Moore in Alabama running for Supreme Court.

What I can say about it in practice is that I've never seen a trial judge removed for political reasons. It's generally hard to vote out an incumbent for these positions due to their low profile nature. Typically the right ones get voted out for being abusive to lawyers and litigants. Ineptness rarely is even enough to get a judge tossed. Only lawyers can run as judges, so as long as you keep the local bar happy, you're probably going to be ok. You do see local lawyers get preferential treatment for sure, especially in more rural areas, but I'd suspect that'd be the case if they were appointed as well because you typically are kinder to those you know.

We had one election years ago where a liberal candidate ran against a conservative Supreme Court Justice but they lost. It's fairly uncommon for any judge to face such a challenge. The county judges have power over the cases before them, but no precedental power, so an argument could be made that they ought remain elected, but the appellate court judges be elected. At the moment, though, it works here, but that might not always be the case.

The American Bar Association has been consistently of the position that no judge have to stand for popular election, but it remains subject to debate. As we can see, no system is without serious flaws. I believe (and I don't feel like looking it up) that certain federal judges (like bankruptcy judges) receive 14 year terms, renewable by reappointment. That protects them from popular opinion, but it doesn't force them on the public for their lifetime if there's a need for change. That sort of hybrid system could be used by the states, but the Constitution requires lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court.

I'm in favor of judicial elevation by merit, where you get certified as a judge (as some don't know what they're doing), you start out as a magistrate and you move up the ranks to higher judgeships based upon reversal rates, reviews by the local bar, and whatever other objective criteria can be established. Of course, some would cry elitism or whatever, so there's no perfect way.

We are not going to know for sure (100%) what happened, who did what to whom, who did or did not witness what, and so on. What we do know is that under pressure, Kavanaugh turned more than a bit vicious. Not a good thing for a potential SCOTUS justice to display. Not a good thing for an appellate judge to display, for that matter. — Bitter Crank

What is the appropriate way for an honorable man to respond to outright lies alleging attempted rape, assuming that's the case?

I sent this message, then typed it in. True story. Things have been happening out of order with me for a while now.

The Great Goat is, and always has been. He is timeless and exist everywhere at all times.

Have a little faith and just believe. — Sir2u

But this misses the point. Even if I have no faith at all in the eternal and ubiquitous existence of the Great Goat, my question of his origin still remains.

Goats eat anything, not everything.

Where did goats come from? Isn't that the fundamental question, regardless of the failed attempts to answer it?

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it. — unenlightened

The process was not designed to be just, nor was it designed to discover the truth. The process was designed to allow Senators, by whatever method they should choose, to select a Supreme Court Justice. Legislators answer to those who vote for them, and so those who feel that Kavanaugh will benefit their voters do what is needed to approve him and the others the opposite.

Had this been designed to find the truth and to determine justice, we'd have neutrals considering the issue. We'd have rules as to what counted as evidence. We'd have rules that might exclude juvenile indiscretions. We might have rules that require open exchange of evidence prior to any hearing, with exclusion the result of withholding. Fairness requires consideration by those without benefit by their decision. Fairness requires all sorts of procedural rules. In this instance, we don't even know how hefty the burden of proof is, whether it is preponderance, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt or even something lesser. The inquisitors aren't even required to ask questions, but are permitted to offer their conclusions and express their outrage when they see fit as the witness looks on and wonders when the next question is forthcoming.

My point here is that nothing is betrayed. Rendering verdicts is the interest of judges and courts, not legislators and legislatures.

Who can blame a Senator for refusing to be a neutral when she is charged with protecting the interests of those who elected her, especially when the US system allows 5 unelected philosopher kings to steer the nation as they see fit? The stakes are so high and the rules so uncertain, who would expect anything other than the free for all we're seeing?

Remedy the mess we're in by saying something philosophical.

A successful-traffic generating post is something about which many care. — Bitter Crank

This thread has 8 posts (including mine) in 16 hours. At this rate, it should fare well, although there's the real possibility it will suddenly die.

Not to get into your personal bidness, but I'm getting a hint that you might live in a more traditional culture than me where male/female roles and much more defined.

I also have disproportionally more lady non-ex friends than I do lady friend exs! — StreetlightX

That's because your exes were far from being ladies.

Another thing that makes Kavanaugh suspect for me is the number of female friends he has. — Agustino

Why do you say such crazy things? I mean, I'll accept that you and your friends tend not to have female friends, but why would it arouse suspicion in you that someone has a personality that simply varies from your own?

And if Kavanaugh passes a lie detector test, you'd vote to confirm. If lie detectors weren't bullshit, why do we have jurors?

A sworn affidavit. Risks perjury and losing her security clearance if she’s found to be lying. — Michael

Everyone risks perjury if they're found to be lying under oath, so it's doubtful anyone has ever lied under oath except like really dirty looking people who are poor and have nothing to lose.

What's striking is the gulf between the stories. Kavanaugh claims he was an innocent virgin who concentrated on Sunday School and his projects whereas the women claim he was a regular drunk, a sexual abuser and an accessory to gang rape. There's no way an investigation won't be able to show one of those two versions of his past to be utterly false. And I'm pretty sure at this point, Republicans in the know, know which one that is. — Baden

I think it'd probably be more important to locate the rapist and the various accomplices, as opposed to someone who supposedly was nearby.

It seems you've concluded he's guilty, so why do we need to have the investigation?

I went to an elite, boys-only Catholic High School in Houston, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn of one my rich, entitled classmates doing what he is alleged to have done. Plus, the cliques stuck together, so it would be easy to get a friend to corroborate an alibi. — Relativist

Really, you were privy to gang rapes of drunk girls, and the typical assailant was wealthy? Fascinating. Kavanaugh must be guilty.