Why is there so much political activism inside tech companies? Shouldn't this person actually do something wrong at his job before the mob goes after him? How long before you can't be an executive if you hunt, or eat meat?
That's appearently the opinion of most high-tech companies. Why can't I criticize that here in a sarcastic manner? I thought this was about discussions... Or are you just talking about the sarcasm part? Can we not use basic rhetoric styles here?
I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it.
To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud.
If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him.
If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
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.
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.
Did Kavanaugh rape someone? I don't know. Are you 100% sure that he did? If not, lets assume that he didn't. Your statement is now wrong since he is worrying about that.
>If not, lets assume that he didn't. Your statement is now wrong since he is worrying about that.
"generally that's not something you need to worry about" is not a statement claiming that it's never something anyone, ever needs to worry about. It is still true that in general if you don't rape someone, you don't need to worry about being accused of having raped someone, because false rape accusations are statistically unlikely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them
The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced.
Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than finding the actual facts.
I'm going to make a distinction here, between "what they're asking" and "why they're asking".
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about "why they're asking:", and he's being asked questions that are intentionally constructed to lead to dark places, trip him up, and paint him in a negative light.
Nevertheless, I think any layperson can detect "what they're asking". A person interviewed for SCOTUS, in my view, must still give a straight answer to a question asked in bad faith. Ill intent on the part of (D) committee members does not justify intentionally incomplete answers that intentionally fail to address "what they're asking". Even if the questions are meant to derail him, that doesn't justify omission or disearnestness.
He gave straight answers during the hearings, before the rape accusations. The trial, of course, was and should have been different. He was accused and acted like a human.
He was not being asked to be a level headed neutral judge. He was accused and made a party to a case. He acted like an innocent accused person on whom vile claims were placed. The accusers acted like witch hunters and did their best to crack open Kavanaugh psychologically. Those people shouldn't be in their positions rather than Kavanaugh shouldn't be where he's going.
In the context of most supreme court nominees, combined with the amount of contoversy surrounding his appointment yes.
Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people.
An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand.
A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
Who caused the ill will? The man accused of something he didn't do? Or the Democrats who manufactured a mock trial with all the optics of one and with none of the evidence and due process of one.
People being good at their jobs isn't the only thing that matters if you're working under their direction. Especially if they're also a large part of the company's public image.
If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.
I only used the "eat meat" example because the guy I replied to did. A better one, IMO, would be "arguing against companies having to pay taxes because the employees already pay income taxes". My CEO has said something akin to that on multiple occasions and I'll keep challenging him on it because I strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I expect him to change but I do expect him to defend his standpoint.
There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
>>If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions.
Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society.
You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do.
This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.
You conveniently left out the part just after what you quoted that said: "If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her [...]"
I didn't say—nor did I mean to imply—that anyone should "change their way of life", "dictate what religion some one[sic] should practice" or "wanting to control other people's life". I said, and I very literally meant, "they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions". That's how we discuss things and gain insight into how other people think and feel about stuff.
If my boss does something that goes against every moral fiber in my body (especially if he does it in his capacity as a public face of the company) I think it's fair that I voice my opinion—even more so in companies where employees are told that "we are the company"—and if he wants to listen and have a dialog about it, cool, and if not, well... If it's bad enough, maybe I'll have to start looking for another job, or I'll just have to learn to live with it.
Saying that no one is allowed to challenge someone else's opinion is both counter-productive and dangerous.
Note: I wrote the parent comment for this discussion - not the guy you are replying to, but I wanted to chime in.
In line with what I was saying earlier - when I work, I care about what the folks I am working with are like - at work. At home or in their personal time, they can do whatever they please, it is none of my business.
Why has the culture become such that this seems to be everyone's business? Is it because there is more sharing of people's lives on social media? Not everyone is okay with that. Some people want their personal lives and opinions to be their own. Not everyone has put their life out there for likes and reactions - yet it seems to be the default assumption that people are fair game to be judged for what they do on their own time.
In India, where I live, we constantly fight against a culture that is in favor of moral policing. Just last week a Hindu girl got arrested here for spending time with a Muslim man. The cops were eventually suspended, but that is one example (for the sake of this discussion) of the kinds of problems we have in the culture I live in.
These folks you are talking about aren't simply "voicing an opinion" they are working to destroy this executive's career. They may not be detaining him against his will, but they are like those cops in my country - who are taking action against someone who doesn't share their worldviews in their personal life. Why is this ok?
>>Why has the culture become such that this seems to be everyone's business?
Mostly because any movement, when it becomes a little bigger gets crowded by gold diggers. And from there on its just people's selfish motives at play.
Politics, and even office politics is all about this.
>>In India, where I live, we constantly fight against a culture that is in favor of moral policing.
Indian here, I entirely agree. Entitlement in the India society, especially related to social influence is just too much to bear at times.
> Especially if they're also a large part of the company's public image.
Why should an intelligent citizenry judge a company based on the dietary preferences of someone working there? That sounds a lot like judging a religion based on one person's actions, and those kinds of principles must not be entertained in a fair and tolerant society.
Why should an intelligent citizenry not speak up against those who cry outrage for baseless reasons?
You must be thinking: this is a typical conservative appointment, so there shouldn't be this much furor over it. Bullshit. Kavanaugh has been decried by the ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates. The Republicans in power don't care in the slightest. And this has been the modus operandi of the entire party since the second half of Obama's term (and probably earlier). Meanwhile, all this is getting rapidly normalized in the public eye by the relentless parroting of the "both sides" fallacy.
It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.
From what I understand he is accused of some crime 30 years ago, after being a very public person for decades, with no corroborating evidence.
In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations.
No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
What I’m hearing is that your values are ultimately driven by your feelings, as opposed to numerous first-hand accounts testifying to this person’s character, or even the words coming from his own mouth.
Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't live in America so my facts may be incomplete.
100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles.
Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned.
The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved.
To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context.
This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too.
The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have
watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence.
I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.
> Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned.
Earlier today, it was reported that Trump thought that a news clip of an old missile launch was a preemptive nuclear strike by North Korea, and that Lindsey Graham had to dissuade him from taking action.
We all knew that shit like this was going to happen before the election! Trump is not any sort of typical candidate. He is an absolute train wreck of a public figure, probably has dementia, and is completely unsuited for any form of office, let alone the Presidency. There is a non-zero chance that he will lead the country to war or outright ruin during his term, and probably not intentionally. The Republican party has stood behind him, 100%.
This is not a matter of ideology, but of the barest of common sense. To say nothing, or to pretend this is business as usual, is utterly bonkers.
President Trump is democratically elected through a process that everyone bought into until it delivered a result that many did not accept.
There is also a process for the 25th Amendment that addresses dementia and other such concerns, via the White House Physician. Even if you assume that were to happen - President Pence and perhaps Vice President Ted Cruz, would not really change the political climate in the USA, considering a Facebook Executive who attends a hearing is also treated so poorly, I can't imagine President Pence or Vice President Cruz will be treated fairly.
The outrage also mostly comes from people in their 20s and 30s at these companies. These people have a binary approach to politics: you're either a moral saint or a Nazi. Since Kav. is a Nazi, all his friends are too. I blame our schools and universities that have taught people to hate other people while managing to pretend it's all about tolerance.
There are probably a good number of Republican voters hired at Facebook. Most of those employees will be supporting Kavanaugh's nomination. There are obviously many Democrat voters employed at Facebook who won't be supporting Kavanaugh. Anyone who finds either of these two facts unacceptable should immediately walk away from their jobs or be terminated. The only alternative is to accept that there is effectively a civil war happening, one side must be cleared out, and pick a side. To me that is just insanity.
In the liberal bubble that is the Bay area. There's tech industry outside of that bubble, throughout the Midwest, in cities like Austin. SF isn't the only place people are writing software.
Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become.
Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected.
The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized.
So if you "come out" as a republican, today, in this climate, then you're outright saying you agree with this radicalization. (Regardless of whether you do agree)
I know a lot of republicans who don't agree with it and, right now, there isn't really a party for them. So they still call themselves republicans and either lie to themselves to deal with their choice (or ignore the bad news), or they fall into the constant propaganda. I've seen several end up converting to Democrats (or at least strongly consider it).
Theory: I suspect the US, after all these decades, is finally correcting back towards a less right-shifted spectrum. As the current GOP moves to the extreme-right, non-extremists shift left and, if they end up democrats, there will probably be a split of the "Liberal" party and the "Democratic" party. This would mirror the more European models.
Everything you said could also be said about the Democrats, except the safe to come out as a Democrat because they control all of the media, tech companies, and generally hold power in the West.
They generally hold power in urban areas, not just the west. The rest of the country tends right.
As you say, both parties are often corrupt, the reps tend to be the family values party so you actually hear about it when they have a problem in that area. It's expected in the democrat world and nobody cares, plus they own the media almost wholly so it's not really reported much.
> Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control".
The press and Trump are basically at war with one another. I can't see how you can claim they're both hard right. All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.
Fox isn't just "any" media, it's state media. Your president watches it religiously and they have an immense influence over what he says.
He has chosen to go to war with the press. To shut out reporters from the press corps. To viciously and regularly attack various media.
You are slowly approaching a Russian-like regime where, if an outlet is not to the president's liking, it gets shut out entirely. It's blatant, and most republicans refuse to acknowledge it (all the while claiming they're pro free speech etc).
Will you personally also be OK with that when it happens, since "well at least the democrats won't be in control anymore"?
I'm scared for your country. Seeing the effect of propaganda after-the-fact in countries like Russia, North Korea, China, and many other dictatorships... it's one thing. Seeing it happen live, that's just out of this world for me.
>All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.
It is possible to endorse Clinton without being a puppet for some DNC controlled leftist conspiracy, especially when the only other option vocally denounces you as a puppet for some DNC controlled leftist conspiracy. Why would anyone but Fox News support Trump in that case?
That being said, media "endorsing" candidates is a practice that should probably be ended anyway. But it's still worth pointing out that endorsing a candidate is not necessarily the same as agreeing to take orders from that candidate's party.
I don't think republicans have ever been respectable except back when they were actually "democrats". In 1860 the democrats were largely racist southerns bent on states rights and the republicans were northerners who viewed the expansion of the Federal government as a good thing for social justice and the country. By 1930 the parties had effectively swapped names which the modern political reality reflects.
> I don't think anybody in the tech industry has the balls to come out as a Republican. The backlash would be awful.
Indeed it's quite rare. Look at how the few Republican supporting tech leaders get crucified (ex: Thiel). Most people don't want do deal with that and even fewer have the financial resources to risk being blackballed.
> Thank God votes are secret, still.
Damn straight. Though it does make it awkward trying to explain the concept of a silent majority in the midst of raving leftists.
It’s interesting to see that today’s business culture is essentially the opposite of “professional”, in the sense of “not-personal.” These kinds of conflicts are inevitable when you start mixing personal and professional value systems.
I would not be surprised to see a return to a strict professional/ personal divide in the near future.
I agree with your assessment and prognosis, and look forward to employers and employees being held to somewhat higher standard of mutual tolerance (even if begrudging) and cooperation, and generally keeping it business-first while on the clock. If one wishes to protest or take other political action, sure, take a day off and head to D.C. or other visible public space.
A throw-away thought: business attire used to be a clear distinction between the time in official capacity, and the private time. With that mostly gone in tech, and given the 24/7 cellphone, email & IM connection, the distinction between workplace and personal doesn't feel all that clear.
That being said, there exists an idea that "the personal is political"[1]; politics supposedly permeate all of one's life. It is further expanded to claim that anybody who is able to avoid mixing politics with daily activities, or able to avoid strongly siding with a political, is benefiting from the current power structure (aka "the system"), and further reinforces said system by staying passive. I think there's a small grain of truth to it, but when becomes an overriding concern and disruptive to teamwork[2] or family & social life[3], something went very wrong.
If the personal is political then we have no refuge from politics. And the only people that say this are the type that want only their specific brands of politics to dominate public and private life.
If you're a persecuted minority you don't get time out from being persecuted. If your school's teachers need food stamps to survive you don't have a 'refuge from politics'. If you get sick and can't afford health care you don't have the luxury of 'avoiding politics'.
People's politics have consequences, and they should own them.
No. Living a content life and focusing on your own problems is not political. "The personal is political" is a hyper partisan statement and anyone not on the extreme left would reject this idea wholesale.
What this concept implicitly states is that if you're happy and 100% of the human population is not living at your socioeconomic level, then you're making a political statement. It's pure BS.
"No", it is you who are tacking additional straw man arguments and then being outraged.
By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences.
If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?
> By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences.
This is the strawman. I said nothing about slave owners. I'm talking about your average, middle class citizen (since that's who's being accused of taking a political stance through inaction).
> If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?
I and many other people don't "know" that we're supporting people who actively suppress rights. In fact I'll say that I definitely do not.
Were those in the slave economy not regular citizens? Did they not elect slave owners to represent them? Help catch runaway slaves?
And do white people today still support the mass incarceration of black people? White people have mj prescriptions and black people serve time for selling dime bags. Generations of men are unemployable because of petty crime convictions that were ramped up to be major felonies by 'law and order' Republicans. Police policies specifically targeting black neighbourhoods with zero tolerance arrest strategies. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS
I don’t know much about Kaplan but after this I have respect for him. It couldn’t have been easy to support his friend knowing full well all of Facebook’s employees are going to try to crucify him after.
I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. There are credible allegations which demand a further investigation as is being conducted by the FBI. Beyond that apart from his clumsiness at the testimony there isnt much going on against him. If these people are so data driven how come they choose to believe things for which we have no evidence. You may mock him for losing his cool but thats just about it. Anything beyond that is questionable and shouldnt be taken as the truth.
Ford's testimony appeared credible. However, there is no contemporaneous corroboration, even from her long-time friend who not only didn't corroborate it, she refuted that she had even met Kavanaugh.
Ramirez, Swetnik allegations are not credible. They too have no corroboration.
For a while I thought maybe she was assaulted in some way and was completely confused about when it happened and who was involved, but after the polygraph comments were refuted by her ex-boyfriend that sealed the deal for me -- it's almost axiomatic that because of her field of study she would be well informed on the subject, her denials to Ms. Mitchell seemed odd, but it appears clear now that she in fact did lie about it. That's not a minor detail, it's a very big deal.
There are two things in my (and many others' minds) about why his confirmation is an egregious "ramming through" by the Republicans that have many people outraged.
1) He is not entitled to this seat. If you were interviewing a candidate who had allegations of any kind (sexual assault, stealing, unethical behavior in general), wouldn't you prefer to interview and hire someone else? Kavanaugh isn't some brilliant legal scholar that we should be so lucky as to have on the bench. This isn't supposed to be a criminal investigation. We shouldn't be arguing the semantics of whether what he's done is perjury. It's not supposed to be close. Nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to aspire to a higher level of ethics, candor, and rationality (and not emotional exposition). The charges level against him, and the nonpartisanship that is supposed to be the foundation of the Supreme Court, should have made whichever party nominated him immediately withdraw his name and submit as an alternative any of the dozen or more judges with unassailable careers and personal records.
2) He made bare his partisanship with his railing against the Democrats' agenda and his conspiracy theory about how Democrats were out to get him because of some ill-conceived idea of our loyalty to the Clintons. Regardless of charges leveled against him, and regardless of their actual partisan beliefs, nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to do their best in their confirmation hearings and for the entirety of their time on the bench, to convey a nonpartisan commitment to the interpretation of the Constitution and the American legal framework. He abandoned all this with his attacks on the left and his aggressive, disrespectful responses to the Senators who were interviewing him.
Yes, Republicans hold all the cards and can do what they will. They could ram him through now, after the midterms, or even let Trump do it in a recess appointment. But, the SCOTUS to this point has had an air of nonpartisanship and civility about it that has all but evaporated from every other part of public discourse, and Republicans are trying now to throw away the last bit of integrity left on the Supreme Court.
> I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty.
Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be.
Has he done something that should bar him from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice? Very much so and can conclusively be proven. Lying on the stand[0] is something not allowed for anyone, but most assuredly shouldn’t be allowed to slide for Supreme Court justices, IMHO.
Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials” or “refutal” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice should understand there’s a stark legal difference between “denying/refuting something happened” vs “I don’t recall that happening”. And that’s just one thing you can prove, the article goes at length with good sourcing to prove more.
I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable.
In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle).
BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.
I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court.
Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it".
That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even
(republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells.
I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases.
What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders?
I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like?
It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.
But again... there isn't a shortage of republican-leaning judges who are far more fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.
My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)
I see what you mean, but as you say their midterm elections are coming up, and no one knows if the Republicans will still have the necessary votes after. If Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, their chance to force someone like him onto the court may go with him. Beyond that I don’t think you can underestimate just how little a lot of senators care about what Kavanaugh did to women in his youth. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham... they seem like people for whom conscience is just a formality.
Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.
No one actually cares what any of those organizations say. Literally no one, not republican or democrat, could care any less what they say unless they happen to align with their political ideology.
Second, the notion of "republican candidates" or "republican justices" (Stevens was not a conservative, or right leaning, he simply happened to be appointed by a republican president) as justices on the supreme court shows an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of the institution.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the court betrayed by this comment. The court is supposed to be non-partisan and not beholden to politicians. The left has cranked up the smear machine in response to every Constitutionalist judge nominated to the court since (and including) Clarence Thomas -- it only appears "republican" or "democrat" because republican presidents appoint judges more often who respect the Constitution as it was written and democrat presidents appoint judges more often who believe the Constitution should be rewritten through the misuse of the judiciary.
Kavanaugh will be a party line vote, and a lot of it will be reaction to the left wing of the senate's behavior in the judiciary committee. note that the right does not, in general, do this -- Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg were all significant majority votes in spite of their political ideology differences.
Elections have consequences (that's a quote from President Obama), and Constitutionalist judges are being nominated. The smear machinery is going to be brought against any Constitutionalist judge, no matter who it is, because of the political controversy over Roe v. Wade, which is in reality what this entire confirmation circus at this point is about.
At this point the US Senate has in essence abdicated its role in advice and consent to the President and turned confirmations into a political farce -- that's not how it's supposed to be, no matter what political ideology one may hold.
> Literally no one, not republican or democrat, could care any less what they say unless they happen to align with their political ideology
You're projecting. People do care. Republican voters at large, don't, and consequentially think that nobody else does. This isn't a "but the democrats are the same!" kind of thing. That "smear machinery" you talk about was not there during Gorsuch's nomination. We're talking about someone who's not qualified to be judge, and if he were an ultra-liberal, he would not be any more qualified.
Please take a hard look at what you just said in your post and think about how crazy and indoctrinated you sound. You're literally dismissing what an ex-supreme justice has to say on the matter of who is qualified to be on the supreme court.
And yes I do understand the nonpartisanship of the supreme court. cf my comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18149174). But if it's nonpartisan, why is the GOP so intent on electing this guy, of all people? Not a more competent republican, not a more competent democrat, or independent. This guy.
Again I have to stress this: I have no horse in this race. If the US burns, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I'm watching from the outside, how people fall for propaganda; kinda like you watch North Koreans fall for propaganda, because that's all they hear, all they see, all the time.
Be more curious and open minded... that either scares you (and that should make you think), or it doesn't, and if so, go for it. Be the north korean who takes the risk.
I said organizations, Justice Stevens is not an organization.
Those organizations have no authority or credibility anywhere. Democrats care about what they say this week because they align with their political ideology -- which as I said should not be a factor in this discussion. Read carefully what I actually wrote.
Many people who want justices on the court who follow the Constitution disagree with Justice Stevens. That's just the way it is, and Justice Stevens was never a Constitutionalist Justice. You misunderstand him, believing him to be a "republican judge" when the concept of such a thing should not exist.
Those who hate Kavanaugh's "politics" are likely to get what they asked for if they are successful in keeping him off the court. Judge Barrett is so far to the right of him she makes him look like a communist -- and the knives are already out for her because she's a Catholic.
Judge Kavanaugh is actually somewhat of a moderate, if you read his decisions. He's simply unlikely to vote to keep Roe v Wade, and he's replacing the swing vote on that issue that has kept it in place for the last 20 years or so, and thus the knives have to come out -- Gorsuch wasn't quite so controversial (although they tried with him as well), because he was replacing an already conservative justice. In fact, Gorsuch is probably a bit less so than Scalia was. Scalia was a consensus builder, but he was famous for his absolute dedication to the doctrine that the Constitution is a dead document and it means exactly what it says and nothing further.
> Democrats care about what they say this week because they align with their political ideology
What Brett Kavanaugh's former classmates, or a bunch of law professors, have to say on the matter is indeed irrelevant for most things. But it is relevant here.
Just like you would want to listen to computer security experts when talking about computer security laws.
I mean, I see what you're saying, and yes I agree with you that either way there's no free PR for those with "opposed political values" these days. But it's still relevant.
> You misunderstand him, believing him to be a "republican judge" when the concept of such a thing should not exist.
I want to clarify my earlier statements, and this goes for Stevens as well as Kavanaugh. When I say "Republican judge", I mean "Judge appointed by republicans, with an implicit political calculation that they will uphold pro-republican decisions". This is what has become of the court and there's no pretense around it anymore, and why I was saying in my initial post that I find it sad.
But if we agree that nonpartisanship is important, then I do not understand how you defend the actions of a man who, instead of addressing allegations in a calm and composed way, cried, yelled, and blamed "the democrats" for "a revenge for the clintons". How the fuck is that nonpartisan?
The ABA actually endorsed him, and that carries a great deal more weight than what a bunch of law professors say. Again, partisans being partisan.
Maybe you've never been accused of something like what Judge Kavanaugh was accused of. In general, his defense was relatively rational and composed for what it was. And the comments about the democrats and the Clintons was probably correct -- he knows where all the bodies are buried on that front having been in the Bush White House.
The whole thing has been a democrat hatchet job from the day he was nominated.
I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way -- I think in general most of the people in the government from both parties tend to be power hungry narcissists.
All I can find on the ABA's position on Kavanaugh is that they called for an investigation, and that they're reevaluating their position on him given his temperament.
I got that, and neither am I. But that's neither here nor there. What matters is what type of media you allow in your day to day life. You seem to have allowed some pretty wonky stuff in, if you're calling this "a democrat hatchet job from the day he was nominated". There was little pushback on him until the allegations came up, other than the usual political card "hey, midterms soon, we should wait".
It's .. the way you talk. It's unsettling. Cultish. I don't know how to phrase this without sounding condescending, sorry... just imagine the way you feel when someone tells you about how great their cult is, and how everyone else has it wrong. Think like, Multi Level Marketing sort of unsettling.
The ABA repudiated that letter, which was written in his personal capacity by the president of the ABA.
There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list.
And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and I prefer that Justices appointed to the Supreme Court actually follow it. That's my ideology.
Of course there was going to be pushback. Politics is politics and the partisan divide is great right now. But this isn't just pushback. As I said, Gorsuch didn't have anywhere near the level of pushback Kavanaugh has. And Gorsuch was taking a seat which people felt was stolen by stalling tactics.
What's craziest to me is that, with some rare exceptions, Supreme Court appointments used to be pretty nonpartisan (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomi...). And now we're talking about a confirmation that will fail/pass by most likely one vote. And this... doesn't raise any eyebrows. It's fine if he gets confirmed, it's fine that the GOP got rid of the 60-vote rule for Gorsuch, everything is fine and dandy. He'll "follow the constitution".
> And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing.
I'm saying the way you talk, in other posts, is very cultish. Make of that what you will. Someone told that to me once and it made me seriously rethink the way I talked to people, and what kind of media I was ingesting.
There had been zero chance to deny Gorsuch since he has been appointed right after elections. The current situation is different: elections are coming and if the confirmation had been delayed past elections and if Democrats took Senate (and they believe they have a chance) then they could have denied Kavanough's confirmation.
If these two had been swapped, the same thing would have been happening to Gorsuch now and you would have been wondering how come Kavanough had been confirmed before and why there is no better candidate now?
No, Gorsuch was a conservative jurist replacing the most conservative jurist who has been on the court in recent history with the possible exception of Clarence Thomas.
Supreme Court Nominations used to be non partisan, and one might note that there is one party that made them not so.
The 60 vote rule was removed by Reid when the democrats had control -- for all other federal appointments. The republicans merely adopted the rule he put in place for SCOTUS appointments as well.
I don't have much of a post history here, so not sure where you're coming from.
Kavanaugh didn’t just deny that he committed the assault, he denied drinking, obvious jokes, and pretended to be a church going, sober, virgin. Well, we have loads of evidence that the latter is false throughout high school, college, and law school. If instead of admitting what he did do as in the past, but choosing to lie, not once but repeatedly, baldly, and swearing to god, makes him far, far less credible in denying the assault claims.
> Well, we have loads of evidence that the latter is false throughout high school, college, and law school
Where is the evidence ? For him to be a virgin, there literally can't be any evidence unless somebody actually watched him (which would be very terrible).
As far as swearing to God goes and being non-drinking and church going, these are things you argue while selecting the class president not a supreme court judge. Why isn't there any talk of his past judgements ?
110 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 92.9 ms ] threadI would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it.
To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud.
If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him.
If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
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.
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.
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.
Because it was an obvious trap and he was right to avoid stepping into it.
By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.
"generally that's not something you need to worry about" is not a statement claiming that it's never something anyone, ever needs to worry about. It is still true that in general if you don't rape someone, you don't need to worry about being accused of having raped someone, because false rape accusations are statistically unlikely.
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.
This was not a job interview.
(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.
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.
The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced.
Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than finding the actual facts.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about "why they're asking:", and he's being asked questions that are intentionally constructed to lead to dark places, trip him up, and paint him in a negative light.
Nevertheless, I think any layperson can detect "what they're asking". A person interviewed for SCOTUS, in my view, must still give a straight answer to a question asked in bad faith. Ill intent on the part of (D) committee members does not justify intentionally incomplete answers that intentionally fail to address "what they're asking". Even if the questions are meant to derail him, that doesn't justify omission or disearnestness.
Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people.
An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand.
A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a...
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...
If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.
But really, who would be that obnoxious?
There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society.
You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do.
This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.
I didn't say—nor did I mean to imply—that anyone should "change their way of life", "dictate what religion some one[sic] should practice" or "wanting to control other people's life". I said, and I very literally meant, "they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions". That's how we discuss things and gain insight into how other people think and feel about stuff.
If my boss does something that goes against every moral fiber in my body (especially if he does it in his capacity as a public face of the company) I think it's fair that I voice my opinion—even more so in companies where employees are told that "we are the company"—and if he wants to listen and have a dialog about it, cool, and if not, well... If it's bad enough, maybe I'll have to start looking for another job, or I'll just have to learn to live with it.
Saying that no one is allowed to challenge someone else's opinion is both counter-productive and dangerous.
In line with what I was saying earlier - when I work, I care about what the folks I am working with are like - at work. At home or in their personal time, they can do whatever they please, it is none of my business.
Why has the culture become such that this seems to be everyone's business? Is it because there is more sharing of people's lives on social media? Not everyone is okay with that. Some people want their personal lives and opinions to be their own. Not everyone has put their life out there for likes and reactions - yet it seems to be the default assumption that people are fair game to be judged for what they do on their own time.
In India, where I live, we constantly fight against a culture that is in favor of moral policing. Just last week a Hindu girl got arrested here for spending time with a Muslim man. The cops were eventually suspended, but that is one example (for the sake of this discussion) of the kinds of problems we have in the culture I live in.
These folks you are talking about aren't simply "voicing an opinion" they are working to destroy this executive's career. They may not be detaining him against his will, but they are like those cops in my country - who are taking action against someone who doesn't share their worldviews in their personal life. Why is this ok?
Mostly because any movement, when it becomes a little bigger gets crowded by gold diggers. And from there on its just people's selfish motives at play.
Politics, and even office politics is all about this.
>>In India, where I live, we constantly fight against a culture that is in favor of moral policing.
Indian here, I entirely agree. Entitlement in the India society, especially related to social influence is just too much to bear at times.
Why should an intelligent citizenry judge a company based on the dietary preferences of someone working there? That sounds a lot like judging a religion based on one person's actions, and those kinds of principles must not be entertained in a fair and tolerant society.
Why should an intelligent citizenry not speak up against those who cry outrage for baseless reasons?
It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.
In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations.
No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles.
Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned.
The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved.
To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context.
This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too.
The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence.
I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.
Earlier today, it was reported that Trump thought that a news clip of an old missile launch was a preemptive nuclear strike by North Korea, and that Lindsey Graham had to dissuade him from taking action.
We all knew that shit like this was going to happen before the election! Trump is not any sort of typical candidate. He is an absolute train wreck of a public figure, probably has dementia, and is completely unsuited for any form of office, let alone the Presidency. There is a non-zero chance that he will lead the country to war or outright ruin during his term, and probably not intentionally. The Republican party has stood behind him, 100%.
This is not a matter of ideology, but of the barest of common sense. To say nothing, or to pretend this is business as usual, is utterly bonkers.
There is also a process for the 25th Amendment that addresses dementia and other such concerns, via the White House Physician. Even if you assume that were to happen - President Pence and perhaps Vice President Ted Cruz, would not really change the political climate in the USA, considering a Facebook Executive who attends a hearing is also treated so poorly, I can't imagine President Pence or Vice President Cruz will be treated fairly.
In the liberal bubble that is the Bay area. There's tech industry outside of that bubble, throughout the Midwest, in cities like Austin. SF isn't the only place people are writing software.
Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected.
The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized.
So if you "come out" as a republican, today, in this climate, then you're outright saying you agree with this radicalization. (Regardless of whether you do agree)
I know a lot of republicans who don't agree with it and, right now, there isn't really a party for them. So they still call themselves republicans and either lie to themselves to deal with their choice (or ignore the bad news), or they fall into the constant propaganda. I've seen several end up converting to Democrats (or at least strongly consider it).
Theory: I suspect the US, after all these decades, is finally correcting back towards a less right-shifted spectrum. As the current GOP moves to the extreme-right, non-extremists shift left and, if they end up democrats, there will probably be a split of the "Liberal" party and the "Democratic" party. This would mirror the more European models.
As you say, both parties are often corrupt, the reps tend to be the family values party so you actually hear about it when they have a problem in that area. It's expected in the democrat world and nobody cares, plus they own the media almost wholly so it's not really reported much.
And why exactly do you claim that? How is it relevant? I'm answering a completely different question, about "coming out" as republican.
The press and Trump are basically at war with one another. I can't see how you can claim they're both hard right. All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.
He has chosen to go to war with the press. To shut out reporters from the press corps. To viciously and regularly attack various media.
You are slowly approaching a Russian-like regime where, if an outlet is not to the president's liking, it gets shut out entirely. It's blatant, and most republicans refuse to acknowledge it (all the while claiming they're pro free speech etc).
Will you personally also be OK with that when it happens, since "well at least the democrats won't be in control anymore"?
I'm scared for your country. Seeing the effect of propaganda after-the-fact in countries like Russia, North Korea, China, and many other dictatorships... it's one thing. Seeing it happen live, that's just out of this world for me.
It is possible to endorse Clinton without being a puppet for some DNC controlled leftist conspiracy, especially when the only other option vocally denounces you as a puppet for some DNC controlled leftist conspiracy. Why would anyone but Fox News support Trump in that case?
That being said, media "endorsing" candidates is a practice that should probably be ended anyway. But it's still worth pointing out that endorsing a candidate is not necessarily the same as agreeing to take orders from that candidate's party.
I say this as neither a Republican or Democrat. Both sides are equally foolish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_State...
Indeed it's quite rare. Look at how the few Republican supporting tech leaders get crucified (ex: Thiel). Most people don't want do deal with that and even fewer have the financial resources to risk being blackballed.
> Thank God votes are secret, still.
Damn straight. Though it does make it awkward trying to explain the concept of a silent majority in the midst of raving leftists.
I would not be surprised to see a return to a strict professional/ personal divide in the near future.
A throw-away thought: business attire used to be a clear distinction between the time in official capacity, and the private time. With that mostly gone in tech, and given the 24/7 cellphone, email & IM connection, the distinction between workplace and personal doesn't feel all that clear.
That being said, there exists an idea that "the personal is political"[1]; politics supposedly permeate all of one's life. It is further expanded to claim that anybody who is able to avoid mixing politics with daily activities, or able to avoid strongly siding with a political, is benefiting from the current power structure (aka "the system"), and further reinforces said system by staying passive. I think there's a small grain of truth to it, but when becomes an overriding concern and disruptive to teamwork[2] or family & social life[3], something went very wrong.
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political
[2] as in people asking for firing of others, or refusing to work with with or mentor others
[3] recently a "Divorce your Republican husbands." tweet made rounds. Not linking it as it feels too incendiary for HN.
People's politics have consequences, and they should own them.
What this concept implicitly states is that if you're happy and 100% of the human population is not living at your socioeconomic level, then you're making a political statement. It's pure BS.
By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences.
If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?
This is the strawman. I said nothing about slave owners. I'm talking about your average, middle class citizen (since that's who's being accused of taking a political stance through inaction).
> If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?
I and many other people don't "know" that we're supporting people who actively suppress rights. In fact I'll say that I definitely do not.
And do white people today still support the mass incarceration of black people? White people have mj prescriptions and black people serve time for selling dime bags. Generations of men are unemployable because of petty crime convictions that were ramped up to be major felonies by 'law and order' Republicans. Police policies specifically targeting black neighbourhoods with zero tolerance arrest strategies. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think he'll cope just fine. Another 2-6 years of Trump after all.
Ramirez, Swetnik allegations are not credible. They too have no corroboration.
While I've seen plenty of people decry Rachel Mitchell's letter to the Republican Senators as "political", I have yet to see anyone refute the content of that letter. (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosec...)
There isn't an honest prosecutor who could get an indictment, let alone a conviction.
Did you even watch it?
For a while I thought maybe she was assaulted in some way and was completely confused about when it happened and who was involved, but after the polygraph comments were refuted by her ex-boyfriend that sealed the deal for me -- it's almost axiomatic that because of her field of study she would be well informed on the subject, her denials to Ms. Mitchell seemed odd, but it appears clear now that she in fact did lie about it. That's not a minor detail, it's a very big deal.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/02/rachel-mitche...
1) He is not entitled to this seat. If you were interviewing a candidate who had allegations of any kind (sexual assault, stealing, unethical behavior in general), wouldn't you prefer to interview and hire someone else? Kavanaugh isn't some brilliant legal scholar that we should be so lucky as to have on the bench. This isn't supposed to be a criminal investigation. We shouldn't be arguing the semantics of whether what he's done is perjury. It's not supposed to be close. Nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to aspire to a higher level of ethics, candor, and rationality (and not emotional exposition). The charges level against him, and the nonpartisanship that is supposed to be the foundation of the Supreme Court, should have made whichever party nominated him immediately withdraw his name and submit as an alternative any of the dozen or more judges with unassailable careers and personal records.
2) He made bare his partisanship with his railing against the Democrats' agenda and his conspiracy theory about how Democrats were out to get him because of some ill-conceived idea of our loyalty to the Clintons. Regardless of charges leveled against him, and regardless of their actual partisan beliefs, nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to do their best in their confirmation hearings and for the entirety of their time on the bench, to convey a nonpartisan commitment to the interpretation of the Constitution and the American legal framework. He abandoned all this with his attacks on the left and his aggressive, disrespectful responses to the Senators who were interviewing him.
Yes, Republicans hold all the cards and can do what they will. They could ram him through now, after the midterms, or even let Trump do it in a recess appointment. But, the SCOTUS to this point has had an air of nonpartisanship and civility about it that has all but evaporated from every other part of public discourse, and Republicans are trying now to throw away the last bit of integrity left on the Supreme Court.
Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be.
Has he done something that should bar him from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice? Very much so and can conclusively be proven. Lying on the stand[0] is something not allowed for anyone, but most assuredly shouldn’t be allowed to slide for Supreme Court justices, IMHO.
[0] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh...
You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.
BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.
Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it".
That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even (republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells.
I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases.
What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders?
I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like?
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavan...
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-oppos...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-...
[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-ju...
My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)
Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.
Second, the notion of "republican candidates" or "republican justices" (Stevens was not a conservative, or right leaning, he simply happened to be appointed by a republican president) as justices on the supreme court shows an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of the institution.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the court betrayed by this comment. The court is supposed to be non-partisan and not beholden to politicians. The left has cranked up the smear machine in response to every Constitutionalist judge nominated to the court since (and including) Clarence Thomas -- it only appears "republican" or "democrat" because republican presidents appoint judges more often who respect the Constitution as it was written and democrat presidents appoint judges more often who believe the Constitution should be rewritten through the misuse of the judiciary.
Kavanaugh will be a party line vote, and a lot of it will be reaction to the left wing of the senate's behavior in the judiciary committee. note that the right does not, in general, do this -- Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg were all significant majority votes in spite of their political ideology differences.
Elections have consequences (that's a quote from President Obama), and Constitutionalist judges are being nominated. The smear machinery is going to be brought against any Constitutionalist judge, no matter who it is, because of the political controversy over Roe v. Wade, which is in reality what this entire confirmation circus at this point is about.
At this point the US Senate has in essence abdicated its role in advice and consent to the President and turned confirmations into a political farce -- that's not how it's supposed to be, no matter what political ideology one may hold.
You're projecting. People do care. Republican voters at large, don't, and consequentially think that nobody else does. This isn't a "but the democrats are the same!" kind of thing. That "smear machinery" you talk about was not there during Gorsuch's nomination. We're talking about someone who's not qualified to be judge, and if he were an ultra-liberal, he would not be any more qualified.
Please take a hard look at what you just said in your post and think about how crazy and indoctrinated you sound. You're literally dismissing what an ex-supreme justice has to say on the matter of who is qualified to be on the supreme court.
And yes I do understand the nonpartisanship of the supreme court. cf my comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18149174). But if it's nonpartisan, why is the GOP so intent on electing this guy, of all people? Not a more competent republican, not a more competent democrat, or independent. This guy.
Again I have to stress this: I have no horse in this race. If the US burns, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I'm watching from the outside, how people fall for propaganda; kinda like you watch North Koreans fall for propaganda, because that's all they hear, all they see, all the time.
Be more curious and open minded... that either scares you (and that should make you think), or it doesn't, and if so, go for it. Be the north korean who takes the risk.
Those organizations have no authority or credibility anywhere. Democrats care about what they say this week because they align with their political ideology -- which as I said should not be a factor in this discussion. Read carefully what I actually wrote.
Many people who want justices on the court who follow the Constitution disagree with Justice Stevens. That's just the way it is, and Justice Stevens was never a Constitutionalist Justice. You misunderstand him, believing him to be a "republican judge" when the concept of such a thing should not exist.
Those who hate Kavanaugh's "politics" are likely to get what they asked for if they are successful in keeping him off the court. Judge Barrett is so far to the right of him she makes him look like a communist -- and the knives are already out for her because she's a Catholic.
Judge Kavanaugh is actually somewhat of a moderate, if you read his decisions. He's simply unlikely to vote to keep Roe v Wade, and he's replacing the swing vote on that issue that has kept it in place for the last 20 years or so, and thus the knives have to come out -- Gorsuch wasn't quite so controversial (although they tried with him as well), because he was replacing an already conservative justice. In fact, Gorsuch is probably a bit less so than Scalia was. Scalia was a consensus builder, but he was famous for his absolute dedication to the doctrine that the Constitution is a dead document and it means exactly what it says and nothing further.
What Brett Kavanaugh's former classmates, or a bunch of law professors, have to say on the matter is indeed irrelevant for most things. But it is relevant here.
Just like you would want to listen to computer security experts when talking about computer security laws.
I mean, I see what you're saying, and yes I agree with you that either way there's no free PR for those with "opposed political values" these days. But it's still relevant.
> You misunderstand him, believing him to be a "republican judge" when the concept of such a thing should not exist.
I want to clarify my earlier statements, and this goes for Stevens as well as Kavanaugh. When I say "Republican judge", I mean "Judge appointed by republicans, with an implicit political calculation that they will uphold pro-republican decisions". This is what has become of the court and there's no pretense around it anymore, and why I was saying in my initial post that I find it sad.
But if we agree that nonpartisanship is important, then I do not understand how you defend the actions of a man who, instead of addressing allegations in a calm and composed way, cried, yelled, and blamed "the democrats" for "a revenge for the clintons". How the fuck is that nonpartisan?
Maybe you've never been accused of something like what Judge Kavanaugh was accused of. In general, his defense was relatively rational and composed for what it was. And the comments about the democrats and the Clintons was probably correct -- he knows where all the bodies are buried on that front having been in the Bush White House.
The whole thing has been a democrat hatchet job from the day he was nominated.
I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way -- I think in general most of the people in the government from both parties tend to be power hungry narcissists.
All I can find on the ABA's position on Kavanaugh is that they called for an investigation, and that they're reevaluating their position on him given his temperament.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/5/american-bar...
And also this from before: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-b...
> I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way
I got that, and neither am I. But that's neither here nor there. What matters is what type of media you allow in your day to day life. You seem to have allowed some pretty wonky stuff in, if you're calling this "a democrat hatchet job from the day he was nominated". There was little pushback on him until the allegations came up, other than the usual political card "hey, midterms soon, we should wait".
It's .. the way you talk. It's unsettling. Cultish. I don't know how to phrase this without sounding condescending, sorry... just imagine the way you feel when someone tells you about how great their cult is, and how everyone else has it wrong. Think like, Multi Level Marketing sort of unsettling.
There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list.
And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and I prefer that Justices appointed to the Supreme Court actually follow it. That's my ideology.
What's craziest to me is that, with some rare exceptions, Supreme Court appointments used to be pretty nonpartisan (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomi...). And now we're talking about a confirmation that will fail/pass by most likely one vote. And this... doesn't raise any eyebrows. It's fine if he gets confirmed, it's fine that the GOP got rid of the 60-vote rule for Gorsuch, everything is fine and dandy. He'll "follow the constitution".
> And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing.
I'm saying the way you talk, in other posts, is very cultish. Make of that what you will. Someone told that to me once and it made me seriously rethink the way I talked to people, and what kind of media I was ingesting.
If these two had been swapped, the same thing would have been happening to Gorsuch now and you would have been wondering how come Kavanough had been confirmed before and why there is no better candidate now?
Supreme Court Nominations used to be non partisan, and one might note that there is one party that made them not so.
The 60 vote rule was removed by Reid when the democrats had control -- for all other federal appointments. The republicans merely adopted the rule he put in place for SCOTUS appointments as well.
I don't have much of a post history here, so not sure where you're coming from.
I couldn’t agree more.
Where is the evidence ? For him to be a virgin, there literally can't be any evidence unless somebody actually watched him (which would be very terrible).
As far as swearing to God goes and being non-drinking and church going, these are things you argue while selecting the class president not a supreme court judge. Why isn't there any talk of his past judgements ?