Crimson wrote:So if evidence comes out proving him wrong now, that would mean he lied to the public about something of immense public interest, which would itself be disqualifying.
The thing is, I'm extremely doubtful that any evidence will come out either way proving or disproving the claims. This was supposed to have happened longer ago than I've been alive and while in some cases maybe there might be evidence, I feel like if either side had concrete evidence either proving or disproving the case they would have presented it by now. It's in neither side's interest to proceed with allegations which rely on one person's word against the other.
However, let's be realistic about the state of political discourse in the US. It's more or less a given that people inclined to believe Ford will then already jump to a similar conclusion about the state of Kavanaugh's veracity in his denial in sufficient numbers to galvanize opposition to his nomination. I'm sure people inclined to support him have dismissed Ford's allegations already too and nothing would convince them to give her a real fair hearing no matter what words they might say on the subject.
cmsellers wrote:1. If he did as accused, he never suffered any consequences, while his alleged victim did.
While I agree with the statement as formulated, I don't know what bearing that has on anything I was trying to say.
cmsellers wrote:The Supreme Court is one of the most powerful positions in the US; the standard is far higher than it should be for reintegrating criminals into society. I believe in rehabilitative justice, but wouldn't want a convicted child molester to be a teacher. Similarly, I don't want someone who has shown questionable judgment to be a judge on the highest court in the land.
Of course, but what you just said is a hell of a lot more reasonable than "he's an ape man and can't be saved". My issue isn't with the concept of disbarring people from positions of trust when they have proven they do not act in a manner which befits such trust. My issue is with the idea that anyone who ever is accused of a sexual offense is an irredeemable villain who should be sent to the hall of destruction for summary combustion.
As I said previously in this kind of offense, uniquely among crimes it seems, edge cases and debatable situations are rife and it's not enough to just say anyone who committed something that we regard today as a sexual offense forty years ago is unsuitable on the basis of an unproven accusation.
cmsellers wrote:The Supreme Court is a lifetime position with only nine seats. So it doesn't seem unfair to me to expect a lifetime of good judgment from appointees.
Absolutely, though it would be nice if there was some proof of this lack of good judgement. Or politicians and the media could just use his jurisprudence as evidence of that, but that sounds too much like work I guess.