totesTheGoat wrote:Honestly, cutting through all of the rhetoric and hypotheticals
I see you're not actually disputing anything I said above. In fact, I suspect you agree that no sane employer would proceed full speed ahead in the face of such allegations. You just don't think the normal rules should apply to Kavanaugh.
totesTheGoat wrote:I think something probably happened to her at a party, but she was so blitzed out of her mind that she can't remember much more than drunken glimpses of that night. I also think that she has either decided that it's for the greater good to blame Kavanaugh, despite not truly knowing the identity of her assailant, or has legitimately convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh, again despite not truly knowing who the guy was.
Okay, so you think she's "decided that it's for the greater good" to falsely accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault. You think this based on... what, exactly? Based on Kavanaugh's eagerness for a full investigation to show she's lying? His lawsuit against her for defamation? His glee that she'll face criminal liability for making false statements to the Senate and/or law enforcement? His plan to have his friend Mark Judge - the only alleged witness - testify under oath to support him?
Oh wait. Kav's done none of the above. He says he wants to clear his name, yet
isn't calling for a robust investigation to debunk Ford's allegations. He
isn't suing her for defamation. He
isn't calling for Judge to testify under oath. He's acting exactly like your former friend did when she lied about her sexual assault: He doesn't want this looked into.
On the other side, Ford is eager - in fact,
demanding - a full investigation. She's eager to swear to the allegations under oath. She's already passed a polygraph administered by a retired FBI agent.
So what're you basing your conclusion - that Ford's a liar - on?
totesTheGoat wrote:Regarding the other allegations, I think that the Democrats have no issue shoving a microphone in front of anybody tangentially connected to Kavanaugh as long as they're crazy or unprincipled enough to muddy the waters with their accusations.
Okay, even assuming the Dems are
that morally bankrupt (which I think is a crazy assumption to make, but whatever) - even assuming that, what would make these women willing to risk substantial civil and criminal liability by making false claims? Even beyond the liability factor, there's the personal and professional fallout. If Ford's found to be lying about something as high-profile as this, do you think Stanford would keep her around? That the US Government wouldn't revoke Swetnick's clearances?
totesTheGoat wrote:The "blue wave" is coming in a couple months, and if they can derail this nomination, they can retake the Senate before Trump can put another person up for a vote.
FiveThirtyEight puts Dems' chances of retaking the Senate at less than 1 in 3. The smart money's on McConnell staying on as majority leader until January 2021.
Not to mention, if Kav goes down, one, the Reps might be able to confirm someone else pre-midterms. Trump has the FedSoc list, after all, and he's already interviewed several other candidates from that list. Even if they don't confirm someone pre-midterms, and even if the Reps actually lose the Senate, do you seriously think McConnell and Trump will hesitate to ram through a second nominee before the new Senate is seated in January?
totesTheGoat wrote:The main difference between being up for partner and being up for a SCOTUS nomination is that there is no national political machine doing everything they can to prevent you making partner.
No, the main difference between being up for partner and being up for SCOTUS is that our standards should be much higher for SCOTUS. Who cares if a random partner at a law firm is an upstanding character? At worst, s/he only hurts the firm, and if they are
really bad, s/he can always be de-equitized and fired - something that isn't a realistic possibility for an unethical Justice, given the requirement of a 2/3rds vote in the Senate.