This is the Message Centre for paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

The Presume Court

Post 1

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

The amount of stuff that we will never be able to be absolutely sure about is quite large.

Rearrange the letters in "Supreme" (as in Supreme Court), and you can get "presume." Supreme Court justices are no more infallible than the rest of us; they presume things based on the information presented and what they've learned/experienced in their lives. Adjust for individual quirks, and you can't be certain that there won't be surprises in how the court goes.

Our President and Senate are currently trying to get Mr Kavanagh confirmed to fill a vacancy in that court. So far, at least four people have come forward with information about his behavior when he was in school. Specifically, the weight of evidence says that Mr. Kavanagh was not merely a drinker. He was a *heavy* drinker. It's not against the law for a Supreme Court justice to have a history of alcohol abuse. It might be possible for high alcohol consumption to have no consequences for anyone except the individual. That does not seem to have been the case here, though.

The closest I can get to data on the effect of drinking on treatment of others is with spousal abuse. A disproportionately high percentage of spousal abusers are impaired by alcohol.

Has Mister Kavanagh abused his wife? Surely any evidence of this would have surfaced by now, though we can't be absolutely sure. Does Mister Kavanagh still drink, heavily or otherwise? No such claims have made it as far as my ears or eyes. Can we presume that, in confirmed, Mister Kavanagh will not show up for work inebriated? I ask this question because the citizens deserve to be reassured that the members of the highest court are not subject to the impaired judgement that alcohol is famous for causing. it's already bad enough that one or more of them have various personal quirks.

There seems to little data about whether alcoholism causes spousal abuse. It is more likely that alcohol removes inhibitions, such that people who already have a tendency to be violent toward women will exhibit it while under the influence.

This not leave me feeling encouraged. I *presume* that Mr. Kavanagh's treatment of women while inebriated is a tendency that he is able to suppress while sober.

Maybe we will never have to worry about Mr. Kavanagh's abuse of women if he goes tot he Supreme Court. But maybe there are more subtle indications about his makeup. Many of us citizens would like to be reassured that a nominee has a judicial temperament. I didn't watch the hearings, and don't plan to catch up on them. If you saw them, what do you think?

If this were a test of Mister Kavanagh's character, what are some possible ways he could have responded to this challenge? Could he have said, "I am sorry if anything I did bothered you or frightened you. I had a drinking problem, but it is now behind me, and I promise to be circumspect in the future."? Could he have withdrawn his name? Could he have asked the Senate to postpone the hearings until due diligence was done by the FBI and any other relevant bodies?

None of these things was done. I can hope that no one around Mr. Kavanagh has thought of doing them, and that as soon as they realize what needs to be done, they will do them. I presume that there's a slim chance of this.

Now, how would it look to a reasonable person that some of the country's greatest luminaries didn't have a long enough list of possible nominees that they couldn't drop Mr. Kavanagh and immediately have someone of equal stature but without the worrisome issues that Mr. Kavanagh comes with?

And how does it look when you think of the apparent rush to judgement by Senate leaders? Yes, I know that an election is fast approaching, and that there may be far fewer Republicans on hand to help the president get a nominee nominated after the election.

Somehow, I presume that the leaders are seriously rattled now. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Is this the onset of madness on the part of our leaders? Are they so stressed out that simple, obvious solutions are not occurring to them?





The Presume Court

Post 2

Pierre de la Mer ~ sometimes slightly worried but never panicking ~

If I understand correctly the hearing is in principle just like any other job interview. And from what I've heard I would *never* hire Mister Kavanaugh as member of the Supreme Court of the United States.

It's not like he's in any way entitled to the job and the mere fact that women who appear to be quite credible have come forward and (under oath mind you!) have been accusing him of sexual misconduct is reason enough. As the old saying goes: Caesar's wife must not even be suspected. SCOTUS is expected to represent the highest form of ethics, moral and justice after all.

Statements from mister Kavanaugh's former classmates seem to confirm that he would drink to excess (as in possibly resulting in memory loss) numerous times. He may be over that now but what did he do back then?

smiley - pirate


The Presume Court

Post 3

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

The ancient Romans used to say "In vino veritas," which means that the truth comes out when you are drunk. If Mr. Kavanagh has any meanness in his nature, that would come out as well. The Constitution doesn't forbid meanness, but if you knew someone had that in him (or her) before you went to hire him/her, surely that would be a bad sign? Unless there were a post of Grinch, which would require meanness. But the Supreme Court is not comprised of grinches.


The Presume Court

Post 4

Sho - employed again!

Aside of if anyone believes her or not (I do) - how anyone can vote into the Supreme Court someone who can turn in that spit-fleckled performance has no notion of right or wrong.

I weep for the USA that this behaviour has become normal for their politicians and leaders.


The Presume Court

Post 5

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

I weep, too.

If you're a conscientious Senator, and you've done due diligence in scrutinizing the man's record, as well as the FBI investigation report, you might still think he's qualified, as Senator Collins has done. This does not amount to giving anyone carte blanche to act badly, though. Senator Collins appealed to everyone's better nature, asking people to resist divisive tendencies.

I can point to instances where unpromising Supreme Court nominees went on to surprise everyone by growing in the job. For instance, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes experienced an epiphany on freedom of speech, and influenced the rest of the Court. This caused a major change in how Americans view the First Amendment.

We can't predict he future with enough certainty. probably we never will be able to. Appealing to someone's better nature lets the person choose whether to do some serious thinking about what's important. Being on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh will be surrounded by possible mentors. I can and do hope he will rise to the occasion when he puts on the judicial robes.

But Trump seems beyond hope. At least one person who used to know him says that there are signs of probable dementia.


The Presume Court

Post 6

Pierre de la Mer ~ sometimes slightly worried but never panicking ~

Oh for Bob's sake, there are 325 million US Americans. Surely the GOP can find another qualified right wing anti-abortion etc candidate without skeletons in the cupboard?

Or - can it? Is Kavanaughty really the best bet?

smiley - pirate


The Presume Court

Post 7

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

I suspect that Kavanaugh really was the best available. That's probably a sad state of affairs.

Neither of us has access to the kinds of in-depth information that the Senators had. If I were Kavanaugh, I would consider myself lucky to have squeaked through like that.

Even if Susan Collins had voted against confirmation, the 49-49 tie would have been broken by Vice-president Pence.

At best (which is not really all that good, this will energize the Left going into the midterm elections.

trouble is, I have almost as much trouble with the craziest aspects of the left as I do with the Rightwing people.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
--Yeats


The Presume Court

Post 8

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

I have just read Susan Collin's speech in its entirety.

She is thorough to a fault. To some extent, my worries about Kavanaugh's upending cherished precedents have been alleviated. Senator Collins has been assisted by 19 lawyers in sifting through and evaluating Kavanaugh's record. Kavanaugh believes precedent to be protected by the Constitution. Even when he feels the need to overturn a provision of a piece of legislation, he makes the smallest possible deletion, leaving the rest of the law intact. As for whether he would allow president Trump to pardon himself, Kavanaugh emphatically rejects the notion that the president is above the law.

Senator Collins continues to try to get Americans to come together and work toward the Constitution's goal of a "more perfect union." She decries the fact that people opposed Kavanaugh's nomination before it was even made. This is the politicized hell that we have here in the U.S. Unfortunately, Doctor Ford has been victimized by the decision of some anonymous person to make public a letter that Ford wanted to remain confidential. Senator Collins believes that Ford is recovering from a real assault. She wishes her well. Corroboration of the events recounted is not there, though. Ford's closest friend, who was present at the party, did not know who Kavanaugh was.

Let's face it, this was 36 years ago. It's not unusual for sexual assault to go unreported -- 200,000 unreported cases occur each year in the U.S. Lamentably, waiting 36 years to report a case reduces the chance of witnesses remembering key details.

It's a heck of a mess, and now Senator Collins is being cited for "cowardice" in a Washington Post column. Well, she chose her line of work. Still, when the Senate is at an impasse, she is often the key person working to find common ground so the impasse can be resolved.
I hope that the country can have her services for a long time to come.


The Presume Court

Post 9

Pierre de la Mer ~ sometimes slightly worried but never panicking ~

Is not "the sad state of affairs" that it's the Senate that appoints a SCOTUS judge? What happened to separation of powers smiley - huh

Over here the judges of the supreme court are - admittedly - also officially appointed by the government, but this is purely ceremonial: What's important is that the appointment follows a recommendation from the independent judge appointment council. This is an unpolitical council, all its members are judges or the like and its recommendations are always followed.

In the end, the letter of employment is signed by the majesty, but this only emphasizes how ceremonial the appointment is. Our monarch is purely a fugurehead we keep for the sake of tourism.

Not many Danes can name a single supreme court judge. I know I can't.

smiley - pirate


The Presume Court

Post 10

Florida Sailor All is well with the world

The President appoint a Judge to the Supreme Court, the only role of the Senate is 'Advise and Consent'. Contrary to recent news articles they do not give a 'job interview' that is the Presedent's role.

F smiley - dolphin S


The Presume Court

Post 11

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

The American Bar Association (ABA) gave Kavanaugh its highest rating early in the confirmation process. After Prof. Blasey Ford made her claims, the ABA urged that the FBI investigate the allegations, and it recommended that the Senate hold off on confirmation until a proper investigation was done. The Senate voted to go ahead after a short investigation. The rest is history.

So, early in the process, Kavanaugh really was regarded as the best.

But the ABA became concerned about his judicial temperament following the Senate hearings. It felt that this matter was too important to rush. But the Senate rushed it anyway.

I don't know whether investigation of some sort will continue. At least one Senator promises to pursue it if the Democrats regain control of the Senate.

Maybe there were two men named Brett Kavanaugh, and the one who assaulted Blasey Ford was not the one who went to become a Supreme Court nominee?

Oh, this seems like a very bad dream. smiley - sadface


The Presume Court

Post 12

Pierre de la Mer ~ sometimes slightly worried but never panicking ~

re 10:

Isn't that just a battle of words? What would have happened if the senate had not approved of him?

re 11:

I don't doubt that Kavanaugh is a very learned man and maybe the best available when it comes to skills in his field. But his reputation is tainted and so is the SCOTUS' now that he is hired.

smiley - pirate


The Presume Court

Post 13

Florida Sailor All is well with the world

>> Isn't that just a battle of words? What would have happened if the senate had not approved of him?

No, if the Senate had not confirmed him (which was a distinct possibility) President Trump would have had to put forward another nominee for the Senate to consider - they can not pick anyone themseves.

On your second point, in the United States we have rule that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When we serve on a jury this is stressed as a very important point - just because a person is seated at the defense table does not make them guilty of a crime. If it is a criminal trial (one that can put a person in prison) the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in a civil matter (that can only have a fine as punishment) it is by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case there is absolutely no supporting evidence so the only way the court is 'tainted' is if you want to put your personal opinion above the law.

F smiley - dolphin S


The Presume Court

Post 14

Pierre de la Mer ~ sometimes slightly worried but never panicking ~

So you agree: The senate hires. Or doesn't.

Of course, he is innocent until the opposite is proven. But because of his and the doctor's statements, he is suspected by many of not being completely kosher. In many companies this will suffice to hire another. Would I be hired as a kindergarten teacher or babysitter if people suspected me to be pedophile? I don't think so.

smiley - pirate


The Presume Court

Post 15

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

"his reputation is tainted and so is the SCOTUS' now that he is hired." [Pierce]

Alan Dershowitz said recently that Kavanaugh will have to spend at least five years trying to repair his reputation. Dershowitz thinks that Kavanaugh may well surprise people with some of his decisions. I don't know about Kavanaugh, but Dershowitz has consistently surprised me.

Senator Collins's speech made many allusions to matters that I know noting about. She said that Kavanaugh's decisions matched fairly closely those of another justice, but I don't know where the other justice falls on the spectrum. If one party or the other gains a more solid majority in the Senate, it won't matter as much what Senator Collins has to say. I don't think she seeks the spotlight.

The ABA has danced around these issues quite a bit recently. They first have Kavanaugh a very high rating. Then, after the contentious Senate hearing, they asked for a time out to re-examine Kavanaugh's judicial temperament. They recommended an examination of the charges. Trump went along with the examination. The ABA pointedly urged that some time and effort be spent. No rushing. We now know how well the Senate heeded that recommendation. smiley - groan




The Presume Court

Post 16

Florida Sailor All is well with the world

Pierce, the Senate does not hire their only power is to confirm or reject a nominee.

You compare this with hiring in the private sector. It is a totally different process.

If I want to hire a new employee I first advertise for the position. I will receive several resume's and pick a half dozen or so to interview. These are all confidential and at the end if somebody asks me why I did not hire them all I have to say is that I thought another person was better qualified. If I was as stupid to tell them that I thought they had committed an unsubstantiated crime the company will be facing a large lawsuit and I would be sending out my own resume's.

In the US the President reviews the qualifications for candidates of the Supreme Court (and important positions in his own cabinet) who have to be approved by the Senate before taking office. I do not think that there has been a single case since 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) where the President offered a list of nominees to Congress so they could chose one themselves.

The Senators too have to face re-election every six years. If they refuse to answer why they rejected a candidate they might well be replaced by the opposition, or even a member of their own party.

I am only trying to explain the difference between hire and confirm or rejectsmiley - cheers

F smiley - dolphin S


The Presume Court

Post 17

Florida Sailor All is well with the world

1798 smiley - sorry


The Presume Court

Post 18

Pierre de la Mer ~ sometimes slightly worried but never panicking ~

What it all boils down to is: If the senate had refused Kavanaugh he wouldn't have been hired

smiley - pirate


The Presume Court

Post 19

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

That very nearly happened.

Since 1789, 162 people have been nominated for the Supreme Court. 125 have been confirmed.

Some of the nonconfirmations have come about because the Senate rejected them. Some came about because the nominees withdrew their names form consideration. Some were the result of waiting so long that the session ended.

George Washington nominated John Rutledge -- unsuccessfully.
John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and many others had nominees that didn't make it.

When I look at the list of connections that Kavanaugh has had with sitting Supreme Court justices -- for instance, Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy, whom he replaced on the Court -- I see just how diligently Kavanaugh has worked to acquire the tools he will need in order to serve. I don't think that anyone would have been very successful at arguing that he wasn't qualified for the job.

Kavanaugh was, however, a key figure in the Starr Commission, which investigated Bill Clinton. It was the partisanship that he showed that caused many people in and out of the Senate to worry that he might contribute to a more partisan Supreme Court. I imagine that Susan Collins had this possibility in mind when she urged Kavanaugh to work for a less divided court.


Key: Complain about this post

More Conversations for paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more