Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Employees Outraged Over Exec's Appearance at Kavanaugh Hearing (thedailybeast.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Hundreds of Facebook employees have reportedly expressed anger that an executive attended Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh's public hearing last week to support him, The Wall Street Journal reports. Joel Kaplan, Facebook's head of global policy, was at Kavanaugh's hearing because he is reportedly close friends with the Supreme Court Justice nominee. Outraged employees reportedly brought his appearance up during an internal question-and-answer session with CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and have been expressing their concerns in internal discussion threads. On Friday, Zuckerberg said that "he wouldn't have made the same decision but the appearance didn't violate Facebook policies," the Journal reports.
What a generation of spoiled rotten brats.
They can be outraged and demand action as soon as employees with other political leanings can complain about any other employee that is shown on television participating in a cause that outrages them (take your pick). Just because you work somewhere does not mean that everything you do represents the official policy of the company. We need to get back to having a separation between our work lives and our private lives.
Either you support people’s right to do what they want in their personal time or you don't.
Does any employer OWN your personal time?
Should an employer be allowed to reprimand you or fire you for going to a rally and wearing an vagina hat while you are off work?
It's really quite amazing to watch. No actual evidence other than testimony and hearsay, and she so far refuses to release the purported evidence she does have. It's astounding.
...that an exec could just say "You don't like it? Fuck off and do your jobs, or quit."
Or, is turnabout ok? Can execs start firing staff that express politics they don't personally agree with? Would everyone be ok with that?
-Styopa
Still too many. Trying to get someone fired for badwrongthink on their own time is unacceptable.
No unauthorized thoughts allowed. You WILL believe the only authorized thing. NO EXCEPTIONS!
that at this point in time, anything could enrage a bookface employee.
Not the hours spent looking for offensive content, not the rigging of elections, not the abuse of clients preferences/personal information, not the use of their employer to live stream murders, suicides and stupidity.
As far as I'm aware it's not proven yet.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
(I'm not saying he's innocent by any means but I'm certainly not writing him off as a rapist because I dislike him)
Guilty until proven Innocent is not the saying.
I don't care about the guy, personally, but really, Innocent until proven Guilty is the saying. What if I were to say that msmash stalked me on another platform, but I can't remember which one, or the date range it happened, and that Anonymous Coward was the witness. Except that AC can't recall ever knowing me during that time frame? Would I be at all credible? No? K, then.
This isn't a matter of line politics, it's a matter of working outside the justice system to build opinion on a supposed crime that was never reported and that no prosecutor would touch with someone else's reputation. The whole purpose is to set the stage for trying to disassemble his credentials in public opinion so they can say "I tried, vote for me!"
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Doesn't know what diversity means. Diversity only applies if it fits their viewpoint.
No it's really not.
If we work on that basis anyone who has upset an overly vindictive person could be ruined.
Society should be ruled by morals and law not "just in case".
even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
"Better to kill an innocent by mistake than spare an enemy by mistake."
- Pol Pot
Have gnu, will travel.
It can't be good with all the drama going on to stir the pot intentionally or not at Facebook. Kavanaugh is a high drama figure and associating yourself with him is going to cause grief one way or another for your business. Especially when Kavanaugh has an air of sexual accusations against him mixed with his behavior during the interview process where he lost his cool pretty dramatically making things look even worse for him then if he would have maintained a cool head.
The facebook executive and Kavanaugh have been friends for 20 years. So what if you want to lend your friend some support on your own time. And it's not like Kavanaugh is evil incarnate. The political climate has gone batshit insane.
Shouldn't these employees just leave the company in rebellion then?
What a fucking toxic environment. These people seriously need to get over themselves.
Morons.
I tend to rant.
We wouldn't want the apex of our legal system to get infected with any silly ideas about innocent until proven guilty, or needing evidence, or crazy #$%^ like that.
I still can't get over the humor that they called their silly little movement the Pound Me Too movement.. Seems more like a request than a call to arms.
And yet their still exist people who have no idea why the GOP approval rating has been soaring since Kavanaugh hit the news cycle.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Phase 1. Kavanaugh is unfit for the SCOTUS because of all these uncorroborated, ever-changing allegations.
Phase 2. His unfit for the SCOTUS because he had a heated reaction to all these uncorroborated, ever-changing allegations .
That's how you get a court full of fucking Baptists and Mormons.
The only thing remotely proven about Kavanagh is he went to keggers in HS and college.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not the OP, but yes, I think I will feel the same way when it's a D nominee.
If we've reached the point where any random person can say words to the effect of "he/she/it did something really bad 30 or 40 years ago, and so shouldn't get this job!!! Evidence? No, insisting on evidence is just so wrong! Because he/she/it did something really BAD!!!", then we've reached the point where the Republic is doomed anyways....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Especially when Kavanaugh has an air of sexual accusations against him mixed with his behavior during the interview process where he lost his cool pretty dramatically making things look even worse for him then if he would have maintained a cool head.
He was coached to act that way. Righteous indignation plays very well with the current conservative base and to them he looked strong, forceful, and outraged that, as a man of morals and integrity, he was being treated the way he was. Many people in the conservative base see themselves as being repressed or persecuted and the current Republican leadership plays into that with all the claims of "being treated unfairly" and "fake news" (which they claim treats conservative unfairly by ignoring goods stories/promoting bad ones, making up lies, etc). This is also helping drive the growth of "white nationalist" and "alt-right" groups and conspiracy theories like Pizzagate, Q-anon, and the "deep state". They don't see Kavanaugh for what he is-a wealthy guy who grew up going to private schools and an Ivy League school- they see him as "one of us", a family man who-like any real American-likes a beer every now and then and the evil "others" (Democrats) are going after him because they hate "us". When Kavanaugh got attacked, they were being attacked too.
It quite honestly may have backfired on the Democrats. Republicans are currently voting only on a limited numbers of issues and, by trying so hard to block Kavanaugh, they will twist it to say that the Democrats don't want him on the court because he will keep them from taking away guns, help over turn Roe vs. Wade, keep them from limiting presidential power, and protect Trump when he removes Rosenstein after the midterms in an attempt to stop the Mueller investigations. It might have motivated the base enough to get them to show up for the midterms.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
How would you feel if a close friend of yours was falsely accused? It's disgusting that you believe he's guilty without any evidence to back up the accusation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Well at that point I would demand Congress take him down. Else every person who voted to put him in, should be taken out.
Is this really that hard to understand?
And btw, I don't think they should vote him in in the first place.
That may be the case if he's not confirmed, but this is the second attempt to stop a supreme court nomination with an 11th-hour unsubstantiated claim, and the first attempt failed.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That's not the way Judging works.
You're right, In the Supreme Court, judging works by listening to all the arguments presented and then ruling for whatever side fits with your preconceived ideological convictions. That's why both parties fight so hard to control who they put on the Supreme Court. With lifetime appointments, if the scale tilts in your ideological favor it can stay that way for a very long time.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Having a senior FB officer support Kavanaugh reflects badly on the company,
Bullshit. It shows that he has the integrity to support his friend despite the hazard of being splattered in the smear campaign. If anything, this raises my opinion of FB.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'd like to see the #MeToo version of "To Kill a Mockingbird".
In the #MeToo version, Mayella Ewell's allegations of rape against Tom Robinson are taken at face value not because she's white and he's black, but because women never lie about rape.
Atticus Finch still attempts a valiant defense, but the jury believes Mayella Ewell because a woman is always to be believed, and Jim Thompson is convicted and hanged.
Atticus Finch is run out of town not for crossing the race line for justice, but because he attempted to discredit a woman's own sense of trauma.
And the entire story is written as a memoir by Scout, who denounced her father after the trial and went away to Smith College where she became a leading feminist literature professor.
And those several hundred need to grow up and realize that people have different opinions than them, and aren't going to throw friends under the bus because of the groupthink echo chamber.
He wasn't there conveying Facebook's official support for the nominee. He was there showing personal support. There's a distinct difference, and these idiots need to hurry up and realize that diverse opinion and robust debate are what make this country great.
That being said, this entire nominating process has been a partisan hack shit show, with both sides contributing to the turd-slinging. It's disgraceful, and not befitting the United States Senate. Or, at least I'd like to say so, but lately that's what the Senate has become.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
What happened to innocent before proven guilty?
If we are now at the point to where mere accusations of actions over 35+ years ago with no proof are what stands, we are in serious trouble for trying to get anyone on any court of other office that requires senate hearings.
One really scary things is, that #Metoo is now weaponized, and you can now ruin a man's life with the mere accusation, with little to no proof, and little to no penalty for the woman falsely accusing the man.
What's to stop this from getting even worse?
Sure, you need to listen to any story a woman puts forth...but you need to ALSO equally believe a man that proclaims his innocence, and until trial and evidence, etc....you have to assume innocence.
Sadly, that is not the case these days.
And, its not like this hasn't happened in the past, even for major public cases, wasn't it the lacrosse team that was falsely accused? I'm guessing many if not most of those innocent guys' lives are still ruined or at least have great hardship due to that.
What do I believe?
I believe it is possible that main lady could be telling the truth.
I believe the judge could be telling the truth.
I believe there is enough Trump hate and people so fearful of a conservative judge getting on the court and supposedly overturning everything in the last century around to where women lose almost all rights....that people would come up with false stories even under penalty of perjury, to keep him off the bench....thinking they are sacrificing themselves for "the good fight, the resistance".
I believe all of those are equally possible.
However, it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence, it is up to the accuser/state to prove their guilt.
That's the way it is supposed to work....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
First Off:
There is zero evidence that it happened. There is zero evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford even ever met before. It's completely "he said/she said" but actually worse than that because even the people she named have said that they don't remember any such event. There is no time, no day, no month, no year, no location. There are 300 million people in the USA. It's not inconceivable that at least one of them would be crazy enough to make up a story like this. I'm actually amazed that it doesn't happen more often. It doesn't help her case that Ford is a expert in psychology nor that all the accusers are die-hard democrats.
Secondly:
If evidence does turn up or if he otherwise becomes unfit for the job, you can still impeach him.
Lastly:
Even if it did happen and was a single event at age 17 and he would have been caught and punished, it likely wouldn't even be on his record because he was underage but even if it was, is something that happened between 2 kids at a party 40 years ago really relevant today? Even if he spent a couple years in prison for it 40 years ago, does this disqualify him now? We should be looking at his record for the last 10-15 years max not stuff he did in HS or even college.
Now there are plenty of things that we should be looking at like his sealed records, his temperament on the stands, etc... but these rape allegations should have been quietly investigated and only been made public if they had actually found evidence. By making them public they not only hurt Ford and Kavanaugh's reputations but they intentionally polarized the country even more. So think about that for a little bit, the only thing that was really accomplished was to further polarize the country. The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
... assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Bad assumption. The Democrats have a very weak bench.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are led by geezers like Pelosi and Schumer, who would be toxic to the national electorate.
There best hope is to nominate a governor, but they have few outside the deep-blue coasts, and their "superdelegate" system (which the Republicans have abolished for their nomination process) militates against that.
If the Democrats want people to believe they can fix the country, they need to show that they can fix their party.
There's a Constitutional process for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices. See: Samuel Chase.
How about you prove it, or STFU. For the sake of democracy, how about we give equal protection under the law, and due process?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Innocent until proven guilty.
"DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW: The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee âoedue process of lawâ to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, âoeequal protection under the law.â Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.."
https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws
Or what, only people you agree with have that right as defined by the constitution. Don't like the constitution, or the amendments. change them, there is a process. Otherwise , shut up. Or get out and go to your shangri la nation of choice. Again, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILITY.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
The constitution allows for impeachment of justices for lacking good behavior. IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him. All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem. (except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I would. To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean. Like your grandma would be proud to eat off your floor clean. There are plenty of other judges of the same political persuasion that could be placed instead. We we are doubling down on this one I have no clue. Sorry, would have responded earlier but its making me wait cause I am AC.
I feel the same thing about politicians, and its why I did not vote for Either of the dofuses that the political parties nominated. Both corrupt.
Great, Lets open up the existing liberal justices to new background invenstigations, and if we find any accusers of bad behavior, lets ask them to resign.
wish I had mod points for you.... especially your closing comments about the divide and conquer thing that's working so well; certainly keeps the attention off those really running things
Open hatred of women and democrats is not acceptable in a judge.Â
I agree. But is that what he did? Or was he simply lashing out at those who he believes have wrongfully accused him of something he has started as not true? I don't know if he is guilty of what has been claimed or not, but if he's not then he has been a lot more level headed than most people would be. I don't think it would matter if he was being accused by Buddhists, republicans, or anyone else. Being accused of what is has been, he would have acted the same.
Even so, I fail how to see his behavior as a reason to disqualify him to be a judge. He's too emotionaly involved in these accusations. Who in their right mind wouldn't be. How would you feel in the same position if you were being accused of being a pedophile? Would it make any difference which political party was accusing you? He is certainly never going to be appointed as the judge in a case against himself. So I fail to see how his behavior in this matters in any way.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
If he loses the job (which seems unlikely at this point), the reason will be less about the accusation and more about his testimony before the Senate. It was blatantly partisan, often belligerent, regularly evasive and misleading, and a few times outright false (e.g. his repeated claim that others Dr. Ford said were present said that no such event ever happened, when what they actually said was that they didn't recall it. A judge should understand the very important difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence).
I get that if he's innocent he has every right to be angry about his treatment. But his response demonstrated a lack of self-control and ability to objectively and clearly weigh facts that we expect of judges, especially those in the highest court of the land. Well, either that or it demonstrated a sharp political mind who recognized that outrage would play well to the Republican base, and acted on that political insight to rouse the rabble in his support -- something we really don't want in the highest court.
Above all, I think any person who really cares about the integrity of the Supreme Court at this point has to realize that Kavanaugh is a poison pill. Perhaps through no doing of his own; maybe it's totally a Democrat smear campaign. But regardless of the origin, it's been so effective that a thoughtful and careful judge, interested above all in the integrity of the institution, would at this point realize that the best thing he could do for his country is to recuse himself from the entire process.
But after Kavanaugh's display on Friday, we all know very well that he is not such a judge -- which to me is the final proof that he is not a worthy nominee.
Had Kavanaugh said from the first that he was a heavy drinker and hellraiser in his youth, that he often drank to excess and had incomplete memories of some events of that time, that as a young man -- like many young men, especially 40 years ago -- he didn't adequately respect women and that although he had no recollection, he could not completely deny that in his drunken state he might have crossed a line with the young Dr. Ford, and if so he felt very sorry for it, I'd have respected him and felt differently about his nomination. If others felt the same, and I think many would, then the Senate could have gone back to discussing his judicial record and confirmed or denied him on that basis.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
king neckbeard raped me 20 years ago. Please disable his ability to post to Slashdot. Also if you doubt my claim you are pro-rape and have a small penis.
Open hared of women, now you are just projecting onto him. Open hatred or at least disdain for the Senators trying to nitpick him into some kind of fault. Breaking down the slang of teen age boys and so on?
Anyone defending himself against such a witch hunt over baseless unfounded and refuted accusations would get testy. Stating otherwise is just trying to create cause to reject him.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Full stop.
I usually don't spout, but it's this kind of bullshit that sends me over the edge.
How about they are ALL corrupt AND incompetent. Don't try to say that the misguided sense of entitlement and "feels" from the left make them merely incompetent. And that nationalism and pride in their country and trying to protect their constitutional rights makes the right competent, yet corrupt (If they were merely corrupt, as an error of omission they must at least be competent).
Let's all agree that politics as a whole, is a pile of manure. Hyper partisanship has led to everything that you see today. (over generalization, but you know what I mean). There's no communication skills anymore, nobody wants to have a conversation, they just want to ratchet up the rhetoric and violence until things get even worse.
Anyway, long story short, who gives a flying fuck about whether or not some employees at FB got butthurt over the fact that someone high up in FB doesn't share their EXACT SAME BELIEFS and supports their long time friend who happens to be in the middle of a scandal that everyone seems to have polar opposite views on.
It's completely "he said/she said" but actually worse than that because even the people she named have said that they don't remember any such event.
The great thing about he said/she said events is watching out how the result plays out in the actions of the people.
I was on Kavanaugh's side right up until last week. But his actions at the senate inquiry are completely unbecoming of a judge, any judge, not even a supreme court judge, and that's all before you consider that given his responses he looks shady and guilty as heck.
Even if it did happen and was a single event at age 17 and he would have been caught and punished
There are many reasons why that isn't the case and also a whole hearted fuck you for excusing the behaviour.
... are you aware that there are two other women besides Dr. Ford who have accused him of rape at this point? Because he's shaping up to be a real Bill Cosby. The confirmation hearing with Dr. Ford was a circus, they deliberately set it up as a "he said she said" thing because they're avoiding giving any air time to the other two accusers.
Three unrelated women accusing him of three different rapes is not a coincidence. That's a pattern.
Let's assume he's 100% innocent. Why should I have more pity for this person than the millions who lost health insurance under Trump? Or Farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of a misguided trade war? [snip]
You should have great concern over the loss of due process. Let's assume he is innocent, and fails to get his appointment to SCOTUS because of an accusation. This is not a "win" for anyone. We need rule of law or everything you are concerned about goes up in smoke, if not now then later, if not figuratively then literally. Loss of the rule of law means we have no bedrock on which to build a society.
We need a society and a government that makes it's decisions based on facts and not "feels". You "feel" he will continue to live a good life even if he fails to get to SCOTUS? He won't. He will forever be an accused rapist. He will never get a day in court to clear his name because no one has actually filed a criminal report. He will never work again. Every decision he's made as a judge would then up for review, because if he has such poor judgement in private life then his judgement as a judge is suspect.
You "feel" the way the government is operating now is not just? Well, by not appointing him we loosen our grasp on justice. If he's guilty then a criminal accusation needs to be filed in jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, which is not with the FBI. Senators keep demanding an investigation from the FBI as if they have some kind of superpower for finding the truth. What's true is that the Senate itself has greater authority to investigate on its own. What's also true is the local police have greater authority to investigate any criminal behavior than the FBI. If these senators don't already know the investigative authority they have, and that of the FBI, then I want their ability to continue in government up for review as well. I'm guessing that for many this will happen very soon.
Kavanaugh needs to be in SCOTUS or in jail. If he's innocent then the process demands his appointment be approved. If he's guilty then he needs to go to jail. Any kind of halfway resolution is an insult to the right of due process that all accused people are guaranteed under the Constitution.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Same as all 12 women that accused Bill Clinton?
I bet you'd defend Carville for saying the Rs found Jennifer Flowers by 'dragging a $100 through a trailer park'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
There are some jobs out there, where a believable accusation of impropriety is sufficient to prevent you from getting that job - Jobs in intelligence and national security. Some jobs in law enforcement. And yes, Supreme Court judges. You need to be above reproach.
Everybody gets smarter as they get older.
The boomers were the god damn hippies once.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I was also raped by king neckbeard. He was drunk and high on cocaine at the time. His penis looked like that dinosaur on Mario Cart.
If you doubt my claims then you are pro-rape and also have a penis shaped like a video game character.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
How can democrats not be corrupt? Democrates could do ANYTHING and the media wouldn't publish bad things about them. This is INVITING corruption.
And the questioning by D senators was behavior unbecoming a senator. Where's the calls for them to be removed from the senate?
Integrity IS supporting a friend on trial for rape at LEAST until it is PROVEN he did the crime, you vindictive keyboard warrior.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused
Absolutely. When it comes to the Supreme Court there has to be no question of past misbehavior.
at the 11th hour.
It's hardly the "11th" hour. The Republicans insisted on rushing things through without proper due diligence of their candidate - As a result this came up now, instead of during the vetting process.
Doesn't mean it's some kind of conspiracy.
Ford reached out to the Washington Post and her Congresswoman in July - As soon as Trump nominated Kavanaugh. She also reached out to Senator Dianne Feinstein at that time.
You gave Clinton the top job in the US. There were tons of verified rapes he committed. You sure you stand by that?
First, there were zero "verified rapes" that he committed. He was a serial sexual assaulter, most of which reached wide publicity as part of the Whitewater investigation. I can guarantee that if that was exposed during his first term instead of his second, that he wouldn't have had a second term.
Tell the guy he's not allowed to do this? Fire him?
Why is it any business of the company, let alone the employees?
That's some nice concern trolling. He wasn't a judge in that situation, he was an accused person. The only people I've seen make those statements about his "temperament" in defending himself have been those who already didn't believe him or didn't want him confirmed period.
This is a bullying tactic you're employing and it's not right. You're discrediting the person because they are fighting back against an unfair process or accusation and using their resistance as evidence against them.
corroborating it. Have you not been paying attention? Tons of people who knew him back then have come forward. His buddy wrote a book with a thinly veiled reference to Kavanaugh where they discussed spiking punch. His calendar his references to beer enemas and 3 ways. He has 3 public accusers and 1 that's hanging back out of fear of reprisals.
A SCOTUS nominee has more power than a US President. They decide what laws are constitutional. They make our gov't what it is. They must be completely beyond reproach. This guy wouldn't pass a background check for a 7-11 at this point. And that's before we talk about the numerous instances of perjury. There's no way in hell he should be seated.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why only the liberal justices? There's quite a lot of people who would be delighted to re-open Clarence Thomas up to new background investigations.
People are angry because they've been told a lot of lies. Free speech doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want at work. Nor does it protect you from getting fired. If you think it should, do explain why Rosanne got fired. And if you still think it should, then consider the fact that these employees were budding their nose into free speech of another employee. Only that other employee was engaging in his conduct on his own time, while the letter signers were doing it at work.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
And all of what you just said is completely legit criticism about this nomination. Democrats screwed themselves with interrogation about high school yearbooks and other nonsense that has distracted from what should be the central argument here: disposition and conduct during these hearings showing that he is not fit to be named to the highest court of the land.
A supreme court justice should be able to rise above the fray, and Kavanaugh showed he is incapable when he opened his testimony last week with random conspiracy nut garbage about the Clintons, who have absolutely nothing to do with this process.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You are confusing Joel Kaplan and Kavanaugh. They are trying to get Joel Kaplan fired for supporting Kavanaugh.
Rebuttal in one word: Garland
Garland didn't get seated due to legal procedural BS. While I don't agree with that either, it's a hell of a lot different than not seating a judge based off of unsubstantiated accusations. If don't see the difference I'm sorry I've wasted your time.
As far as I'm aware it's not proven yet.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
(I'm not saying he's innocent by any means but I'm certainly not writing him off as a rapist because I dislike him)
The correct question is "How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime due to your response to an accusation?"
Regardless of the merit of the accusation, the way in which Kavanaugh lost his shit and was all over the emotional spectrum does not present a picture of an emotionally stable person. This would instantly get you crossed off the list at the vast majority of employers. Also, imagine if a woman had responded to something in this manner. She would likely instantly be cut and be labeled an emotionally unstable wreck that would be unfit for such a position.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
That's something I never understood about the US. How can you have a D or an R judge? The whole point of having a judge is for that person to be unbiased and not use their own own beliefs when making decisions. They are to interpret the law in a completely impartial manner from their point of view and with respect to the defendant.
By saying that a person is a Republican or Democrat judge one is saying that they are going to be applying a set of beliefs towards their judgements. All of the Supreme Court judges are known by how they will likely vote on certain cases based on their political and religious beliefs.
How can anyone get a fair trial when your judge is allowed to judge the case based on their beliefs? Abortion might become illegal again in the US because the majority of Supreme Court judges don't believe in it. How is that impartiality?
I was on Kavanaugh's side right up until last week. But his actions at the senate inquiry...
"We believe you were for him until the hearing." -- No one
It appears to me, that the FBI did exactly the level of background investigation that they do for any candidate for the SC, and other such positions.
The judge has been investigated like what, 6 times before....if something was bad as claimed, I think it would have shown up before.
This, compounded with the fact that Feinstein held this back to last minute....pegs this as a last ditch effort to hold off on appointment till after Nov elections, nothing more. If they had brought this up weeks ago, I would feel differently.
So far, I've not seen any corroborating reports come in against him, much less have seen them verified. Where and what are the lies? Again, if this were provable, it would have been all over the news and we'd likely not see him go any further.
From what I"ve seen, this guy gives proper deference to precedent, and has stated that Roe is pretty much settled law. I believe him on that. And ONE person isn't going to change something major like that. And too, they don't legislate from the bench at the SC, they only take cases that are presented to them through the states. They can't just arbitrarily jump up on their own and change or strike down laws.
I hope, and think he will be....more of a constitutionalist....I wish we had a whole court of Scalia's.....folks that try to interpret what the constitution says, what it meant when it was written, and not try to twist it to today's sentiments and try to make 'new laws' by new interpretations. I think the Constitution is as written, and if we don't like something, we don't re-interpret it, we amend it as it was meant to be done.
So far, I've not seen anything solid being thrown at the guy stick. I think he is most qualified for the seat.
I"m kind of ashamed at the Dems blocking due to nothing more than partisan politics....you look at Republicans, they voted for Sotomayor and Kagan.....but this time around the Dems are just blocking because this guy isn't a liberal make up new interpretations guy, IMHO.
This isn't going to be the end of the world if he gets in....relax.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Judges frequently are asked to make decisions in the gray areas. In fact that is a common function of the supreme court. For example, there is no mention of abortion in the constitution. A group of 9 people were asked to interrupt what constitutes the beginning of life and whether or not taking it away constitutes murder, or not. Whether one thinks this type of decision is a moral or not will sway their legal opinions in the absence of solid law and precedents. Pass a constitutional amendment for or against and it's the nearly irrefutable law of the land. However, the issue is too split to get broad support one way or the other.
Scott
So, if you're applying for a job and somebody doesn't like you and/or what you believe in, they can accuse you of something, and then you will no longer be above reproach, right? And that's okay, right? Just checking.
so I'm gonna say this:
Kavanaugh is not a nice person. He's a pretty jock who was born on 3rd base and acts like he hit a triple. I'm a nerd. I was bullied. A lot. Kavanaugh is the kind of guy who did the bullying. There's something deeply ironic about a site full of real nerds coming to the defense of a jock.
If this was just about false accusations that'd be one thing. But then there's his voting record, which is entirely pro-corporate and anti-worker. There's the numerous examples of perjury during his confirmation testimony (much of it unrelated to the accusations). There's his quiet frankly belligerent testimony that made him look unhinged.
What we have here is a bunch of folks rushing to his defense not because they think he should be seated, but because their emotions tell them men are getting cheated. Calm down for a moment and ask yourself, how is this man's decisions going to affect my life? If you make under $300k/yr the answers don't bode well for you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What I want to hear from someone in his shoes:
"The American people deserve a Justice without any doubt of his veracity. I refute these claims, and submit my withdrawal of candidacy.
That's exactly what we DO NOT want to happen. We don't want someone withdrawing because of false accusations. What I would have preferred to see is a response of "investigate all you want, sure I'll take a polygraph, etc.." The real issue here (besides the wag the dog pony show) is that the Republicans want to make sure they get a confirmation before the November Election just in case they lose some seats which generally happens in midterm elections.
Burden of proof is the standard of ALL debates and rational decision making.
If you start saying that "We're making a decision, but hey, we don't want to have to meet any burden of proof, apart from that which someone proposes as it's something they feel strongly about", then welcome to Creationism and Flat Earth in Science classes, Anti-Vax being instituted as medical policy and so forth.
Stating that "It's just a job interview, who needs legal standards" is disingenuous. What you're advocating seems to be abandonment of rational decisions, which is patently absurd.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Yep, those young whippersnappers like Grassley, McConnell, Hatch or even Collins or Murkowski just make Booker, Heitkamp, and O'Rourke look ancient. Meanwhile the over hill crowd like Flake are leaving.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
We're not talking about the CEO. To almost all people, this is a no-name exec who is certainly not the face of the company.
1. A cursory search on google says the accusation was for 1982, I can't be bothered to look more closely for a specific date. There has been no evidence, however there rarely is in such allegations. And your point about false accusations being made purely for political reasons is definitely something that always bears thought and consideration.
2. While impeachment would be technically possible I think we'd need something significantly more offensive than a 40 year old rape. You don't have to look any further back than Clinton for proof of that.
3. I can agree to some degree that what we did in our youth shouldn't throw an eternal shadow over the rest of our lives. However for positions of such power and authority I don't see why we can't be more picky and require candidates that have always shown good enough judgement so as to not have committed felonies such as rape. Not that I'm convinced the candidate currently in question did commit a rape, but I think that such a crime should definitely be a dis qualifier. My biggest concern so far has been that his actions don't look like an innocent persons actions. For example when he was asked about drinking and being drunk, he failed to actually admit to or deny any drinking but instead immediately went off on a tangent about the lower drinking age, despite his age at the time still being under that lower age, and how much he likes the taste of beer. He's a judge and should be intimately familiar with the habits of evasive testimony. An admission of underage drinking, possibly even excessively, would have come off looking far more professional.
I think there are several obvious reasons the Democrats have played this up every way possible. First there is the slim hope that they could keep the slot open through the mid term elections and possibly win a majority in the senate, and then hold the slot open until a possible presidential race. Polarization plays well for both parties, the hope of course is always that your side will draw more than the other. In this case the Democrats are likely to pick up more female voters than the Republicans, even if it's not converting voters it is likely to encourage more women to participate that are sympathetic to their cause. If nothing else the squabbling was intended to try and delay the appointment until after the next session of court, because there is at least one case regarding abortion that is or could be on the docket.
and his right wing politics and Wallstreet Deregulation caused the 2008 market crash (he's the one that started letting Mainstreet & Wallstreet banks mix, Bush continued it and that's what got us Credit Default Swaps).
So yeah, as a card carrying Democrat I wouldn't mind in the slightest if Clinton had been taken down. But as a right wing establishment Dem he was propped up by the Mega corps to do their bidding. Just like this Kavanaugh guy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there are grey areas. Let me spell it out
Some Democrats are corrupt (Pelosi, Manchin).
Some are not (Bernie, Warren, Orcasio Cortez).
I can't name a single GOP member who isn't bought and paid for. Seriously, show me one that refuses corporate PAC money. Just one. I'll wait. Meanwhile the Dems have a wing (google "Justice Democrats") for whom that is a requirement of admission.
The Dems are awful. The GOP is awful. But there's something I think we can salvage in the Dems. I base that on evidence and voting records. I have no such evidence for the GOP. They're only goal is to serve their donors and I have no hard evidence to indicate otherwise. This is a science forum. I expect evidence. As the saying goes, picts or it didn't happen.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You could have said the exact same thing in the 1960s. Only morons hang onto their childish idiocy. Lots of things change, but everybody does/pays their taxes, every year. Only a few a blind enough to think they are getting value from it.
Ok grandpa. Oh well, I'll just continue on here through my 40s with my "childish idiocy", likely paying much more than you in taxes due to the business I own, and having to face the coming future with more than tired platitudes about how I want the world to be rather than what it is. Meanwhile, you can sit there sniffing your farts, loving the rich flavor, thinking about baby boomers... aka the Me Generation... and the 1960s as if any of that has any relevance to 2018 50 years later. Everyone is stupid but you, and even though you need only look out the window to see which way the wind blows, I'm sure you're right.
I'm surprised you didn't hear, it was kind of a big deal. They still exist (we couldn't kill them completely) but they only get a vote in round 2, and even then lost some power. And round 2 hasn't happened in 30 years.
The Dems have their problems, but I think they're salvagable. There's some folks who refuse corporate PAC money. Quite a bit actually. Google "Justice Democrats". They also support populist ideas like Universal healthcare, free college, the "New New Deal", etc.
The Republicans talk a good game but when it's time to put up they take away protections for pre-existing conditions, cut infrastructure spending for tax cuts and cut federal funding to colleges. You can argue the Dems will do the same thing, but they've never been given the chance. They had 2 years during which they spent all their political capital on healthcare reform and did that while rebuilding the economy after the biggest crash since the Great Depression. Give them a super majority of Bernie Bros & Gals and a matching president if you want to see what the left can do for America.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Those of us greater than 5 years old don't have to wonder how we'd feel. Garland's case is arguable more heinous, because Rs simple refused to discuss his nomination for no reason other than partisan politics.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And the Democrats are more than willing to go this way, because they both crave power and believe they are unassailable in their pursuit of that power.
Here you go.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have people forgotten what was said about Clinton during the presidential campaign already? Supported her husband who cheated on her and sexually assaulted women. The accusers were invited by Trump to the second debate and sat in the audience. Trump used her husband's alleged actions to excuse his own.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
it's about character. Character matters for a lifetime appointment. We can't get rid of him once he's seated. And he will have mind numbing amounts of power. He's basically got Veto power on any law that comes before him. He doesn't have to justify himself either. Clarence Thomas, for example, has written one opinion in his entire time on the bench.
It's about risk. Everything I know about the man tells me I don't want him in charge of my fate. There's plenty more like him that are much, much less risky. They're not going to side with the mega corps 100% of the time against me. They might even have some basic understanding of what my life is like. And they're not as likely to be actively hostile. Again, I have to go on the evidence I have when making a decision. We all do. The evidence tells me that this guy is no friend of mine, and that he's going to use his power to enrich himself and his friends at my expense. Just like those jocks who bullied me did.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you fucking retard, the accuser that accused him of GANG RAPE has been proven to be full of shit even by MSNBC.
her sworn statement taken by the stormy daniels attorney DOES NOT MATCH
her written statement to MSNBC which also DOES NOT MATCH
her on camera interview
she gave a SWORN testimony he put Qualudes in her drink and GANG RAPED her.....
this eventually turned into :
I saw him by the punchbowl standing there
He was at the party and laughing with some other guys
And lets not forget that the Ex Boyfriend had filed a RESTRAINING Order against her for threatening him, his soon to be wife, and future kids, saying she will accuse him of rape.
Lets not also forget that her former employer FIRED her for sexually harassing clients, and then tried to claim it was the clients that harassed her.
But you want to pretend Kavenaugh is a gang rapist without one shred of evidence nor trial. This is what we call PROJECTION in psychology terms you gang raping AC fuck.
your whining about losing an election does not make it so
Go ahead and quote me where that happened. T won fair and square. Don't imagine I'm the boogeyman your talk show tells you about it doesn't do either of us any good.
No, Garland didn't get the job because the dominant political party chose not to confirm him.
By all accounts MG was an excellent choice, and it was blocked from even a vote by con partisan politics. It's not that they voted against him, they didn't even allow a vote. Read the wikipedia article. Note the word "unprecedented". By not allowing a vote, it allowed con senators to avoid going on the record as voting against him. It prevented honest senators from voting their conscious.
To suggest that cons haven't engaged in the same type of dirty tricks, and helped build the system that caused this, is dishonest.
Yes, they are asked to judge in the grey areas but that doesn't mean that they are free to put their own ideas in. That turns them into lawmakers. They are only to apply the letter of the law and, if not preset, the spirit of the law as how the it's applied today. Having a case go before a different judge, or a set of different judges, should not result in a different judgement. Yet this is common in the US Supreme Court and the differences are down to the ideologies of the judges.
People should not be able to guess how a judge is going to vote on a case based on their beliefs before a case has even started in the Supreme Court yet you see this all of the time in newspaper articles concerning controversial subjects such as Obamacare and LGBT rights. Rarely is there ever a surprise. Might as well save all the money and not hold session. Especially if this new clown gets into the Supreme Court.
Read closer, she doesn't even make that claim! She said she was the target in 1982 but attended ten parties from 1981 - 1983. She went back for more by her own account!
-knewter