Legality and Morality in the Kavanaugh proceedings

Disclaimer: This isn't a thread about our political views, what it's like in other countries, or how we think it ought to be.

The enforcement of laws in the legal system hinges on several principles that are rarely abridgeable: corpus delecti is the one at hand - a crime can't be prosecuted without evidence of it having taken place.

The first time the alleged incident was brought forward during therapy in 2012. Dr Ford's allegations of sexual assault were forwarded to her Senator Fienstein in July 2018, when his name showed up on a shortlist for potential justices. Feinstein announced their existence and "referred the matter to federal investigative authorities" on the 13th. That announcement spurred Ford's attorney Katz to arrange meetings with many senators who were interested in delaying Kavanaugh's nomination. The FBI's investigation based on the allegations of Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez, and unilaterally blessed by the government, yielded a 45 page report that failed to recommend charges (and has not subpœnaed anything or anyone). *This timetable is pretty much undisputed as far as I know*

Kavanaugh and Mark Judge (the only direct witness to the event) have both denied the allegations. As they are the only material witnesses to corroborate the story, there are very few available forms of evidence to support the narrative. While convictions can be upheld beyond reasonable doubt without physical evidence, it is notably rare and difficult.

In the tail end of the me too movement which has empowered many women to bring forward sexual assault accusations starting with Harvey Weinstein (who is out on bail). Many feel this movement is a positive step in combatting sexual violence against women. However, no laws or interpretations and enforcement practices thereof have changed.

People see Kavanaugh's confirmation as not supporting women who come forward with sexual assault allegations or a spurious witch hunt to defame a nominee based on his views of executive deference. Legally, there aren't any qualifications for Supreme Court Justices beyond citizenship. One can believe the accusations brought forward by Ford et al., and still understand that it is nearly impossible to secure a conviction. In the face of accusations, while they affect views of his character, they do not preclude him from the Justiceship.

For those who skipped to the end or read all of this:
How does your understanding of morality inform implementation within a practical framework?

That my morality is my own and can't be enforced peacefully or practically..

Some concepts are just good from a pragmatic standpoint. Requiring accusers to show proof, even against someone who has guilt written on their face. Protects me against others who might be seeking to harm me using the violence of "The state"..

Does morality matter then if it only applies to you? Or even more, is it really morality?
Do your morals ever conflict?

At this point, with the things he has said... morally, it would be horrific to put him in a lifetime position of power, even if he is innocent. Even if he didn't do it, or has no memory of it (drink or time stealing it from him)... the idea that he MAY have done something like that should shake him to his core, as a protector and supposed upholder of the law. Even if he didn't do it, the fact he didn't immediately call for an investigation into the matter, rather than tear down this clearly harmed woman and make her life a living hell... rather than apologising (innocent or not) and stating that, if he does get confirmed, he would take a hard stand against such injustices in the future is appalling and horrifying and should immediately disqualify him from the position.

The fact he's not stated anything against the death threats, protests outside her house, or the humiliation she's undergone (again, innocent or not) shows a severe and alarming lack of compassion, and the fact he didn't call for a thorough and impartial FBI investigation into the matter shows he either has something to hide or doesn't seem care for whatever justice it may bring to either of them.

Morally, this man is disgusting, and the fact that the current US administration is rushing to have him confirmed rather than, upon seeing that it could be very possible this candidate is not suited for this role and would shine poorly on them, choosing another candidate... well, its terrifying. Not only does this man have a severe lack of empathy, seems not to care for the laws hes sworn to protect, acts in a very un-judicial manner when questioned (so much so as to lose his position (if confirmed or not) as a teacher of law), but he also believes a sitting president should be immune from the laws that they are both sworn to protect.

Honestly, the fact he's still being considered, and in fact is being rushed into power to ensure he's in a lifetime position that is almost above the law while these kinds of accusations stand... it makes me sick with worry with the state of the States. Things will, if he gets in, get considerably worse in the years to come. Just thinking of it makes me want to vomit with worry, with the overwhelming injustice that this is (even if he does turn out to be innocent, which at this point I seriously doubt could be a truth), and it makes me shake with rage that the current administration would continue to let this happen silently while bashing this woman who has been extremely brave, even heroic, in doing what she's doing.

I would think laws are for morality when in question. Here in the states- mynown opinion - but we rely on the law far too much. When we as individuals can govern our own selfs in stead of calling the cops or taking it to court automatically - then we can maybe see some form of change. We have relayed way over and abundantly on others to discern for us a bit too much and now we have laws that stand for morality when it’s missimg, dontjeyndatnd for all? Probly notmonly when I’m question. That’s Kinna whatblaws are for , right ? Only when you need em? It’s a hard thing to think about for me myself. Personally,
If I don’t have to - I won’t bring the “system” into any of my desisions if I don’t have to. My choice.

Rex wrote: For those who skipped to the end or read all of this:
How does your understanding of morality inform implementation within a practical framework?

The movement empowers the present and future more in a practical sense, and not so much the historical - just because time erodes and distorts things like evidence and memory. Assessing accuracy of competing information needs to be done on the basis of the presumption of innocence IMO. So timeliness is a big factor. One of the sad realities of crime is that the best person to ensure the justice system can work is often the victim, whether it be ensuring evidence is somehow gathered or reporting sufficient detail within sufficient time for truth to be determined in that atmosphere of competing narratives. Even in simplistic terms, accusation alone cannot be enough just because people lie for many reasons, and women have lied in the past about sexual assault.... and I don't think the system can properly assess a persons character to determine their probability for lying to the extent that it trumps the importance of the presumption of innocence. So in situations like this, it cannot be both narratives are true, and so subjective preference to one side or the other probably is irrelevant in practical terms. It's better seen, perhaps, as a failure of the past culture which should be and is being slowly improved. So the only moral could be, don't hold onto the past failures so much and instead take the lessons to shape a better future.

Law is about equity, which is informed by reason and found to be moral.. however, morality itself is highly subjective.

Murder is a good example. In most cases, people feel murder is wrong. Unless it was committed against a pedophile. That is morality..
Equity and reason says his life is not ours to take, but he must take responsibility for the injuries he's caused..

The bias shown in the last post toward one side of an otherwise even issue and not the other strengthens any tentative position I formerly had on the subject in favor of getting him confirmed as quickly as possible if no detrimental actual evidence is found beyond simple assertion. This sort of extreme leftist mentality in the concept of guilty until proven innocent is just sickening and needs to be eradicated.

Beyond a partisan divide, we can support people who alleged they are victims of sexual assault, but still support the accused's right to innocence unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.

An individual murdering a pedophile of his own initiative isn't justified. An execution is different, because it is on behalf of the state. Equity and morality may coincide with legality, but do not define it. Extrajudicial punishment puts you outside of the protection of the law, and essentially invalidates any notion of Justice that may be held. Relying on the law is neither a strength not weakness, but a state of being. You can't reasonably expect to cherry pick the benefits without reaping the consequences therein

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The bias shown in the last post toward one side of an otherwise even issue and not the other strengthens any tentative position I formerly had on the subject in favor of getting him confirmed as quickly as possible if no detrimental actual evidence is found beyond simple assertion. This sort of extreme leftist mentality in the concept of guilty until proven innocent is just sickening and needs to be eradicated.

Facts have a liberal bias. "It's easy to confuse what is, with what aught be; particularly when what is has worked in your favor". You talk about bias, and display your own rather brilliantly. You talk about eradication, and I'm starting to see why you have such troubles with the leadership, and community, here. You radiate dark-side vibes, if I may say so.
He did it. He's guilty of other damning (and impeachable) things, as well, and he'll probably have that brought against him soon enough. An investigation designed to not find evidence of guilt is hardly exonerating, morally speaking. The mythology presented in Star Wars showed Sidious surrounding himself with people who would aid and protect him in his machinations, and often manipulated the system to his advantage, where his opponents were rather restrained by the system.
You say you want him there, and I'm reminded of Dooku, who wanted stronger leadership for the Republic, we all saw how that worked out.
Mythology aside, History hasn't worked out for this sort before, ultimately, and it won't for these people, either. Eventually, they will be gone, left to the judgement of history and the society that does away with their tyrants.