Legality and Morality in the Kavanaugh proceedings

Arisaig wrote: I cannot sit by while this man who has got away with crimes becomes the head of the law.

Now I'm not terribly up to date on the whole thing yet, a lot of recent events has kept me busy, but has he actually been convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes? Or is that just on opinion?

Tellahane wrote:

Arisaig wrote: I cannot sit by while this man who has got away with crimes becomes the head of the law.

Now I'm not terribly up to date on the whole thing yet, a lot of recent events has kept me busy, but has he actually been convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes? Or is that just on opinion?

As of yet, no. And it is unlikely that he will be now that he is confirmed.

But his actions during questioning, along with other facts of the events during these past few weeks has been very telling. So no, he's not guilty as of yet, in a legal standpoint. But he refuses to have an investigation be called for to prove his innocence once and for all, despite Ford's calling for one to prove his guilt. Why? Well... I've already outlined those reasons in my previous responses...

Arisaig wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

Arisaig wrote: I cannot sit by while this man who has got away with crimes becomes the head of the law.

Now I'm not terribly up to date on the whole thing yet, a lot of recent events has kept me busy, but has he actually been convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes? Or is that just on opinion?

As of yet, no. And it is unlikely that he will be now that he is confirmed.

But his actions during questioning, along with other facts of the events during these past few weeks has been very telling. So no, he's not guilty as of yet, in a legal standpoint. But he refuses to have an investigation be called for to prove his innocence once and for all, despite Ford's calling for one to prove his guilt. Why? Well... I've already outlined those reasons in my previous responses...

so despite all of that if some magical portal opened a window to that time frame or any other piece of evidence proved his innocence despite all these "tellings" how would you feel, hypothetically, about your seemingly strong views based on, no offense but only speculation because you don't understand his choices of actions during this recent event, or you think you do in that those actions MUST be because he is guilty, but ultimately you don't know?

Not trying to attack in this I'm trying to work my way around to the concept of innocent until proven guilty, because it is a thing and its been a proven thing for a long time for a reason. You may not agree with his methods, I may not agree with his methods, and none of us, and perhaps not even kavenaugh will ever understand the reasons behind those methods, but none of which will prove one is guilty anymore then one is innocent. Innocent people have plead guilty to protect others out of love or other reasons, even if it doesn't make sense to us. His reasons will be his reasons, but his acts today are after practically a lifetime of experience that has changed who he is to who he is. Including whatever did or did not happen that night.

There are two very valid points to bring up at this juncture. Should one sketchy event 35 years ago have an effect on today? When its effects have already been in place for the last 34+ years? Or to echo carlos's position, the Kavanaugh has also been serving the people for some time, should all of those good deeds be completely ignored by a bad one? Should the accuser have had to live with the regrets or the emotional break that she had to endure all these years? are they even as big as she's claiming they are or a search for fame. We've seen plenty of woman who have thrown out false claims as well. These are all decisions and thoughts that not only should not be taken lightly but should be carefully considered and the views in and of themselves, not rushed into for any reason. However sometimes the circumstances do not afford us the time? so how do we balance all of that without rushing to conclusions on incomplete information?

The issue, overall, isn't if he did it.

Right now a man sits in office with horrid accusations still standing against him. This cannot become the norm for positions of power in the States. It is very possible a rapist is sitting in office. Instead of waiting for his innocence to be proven, he was rushed into office.

Its the principle that matters here. Could not have the confirmation been held a month while this is cleared up, rather than rushed through while its undergoing?

Arisaig wrote:
Its the principle that matters here. Could not have the confirmation been held a month while this is cleared up, rather than rushed through while its undergoing?

Could it have been cleared up in a month? do you know for sure? I mean some cases have been dragged out years, can we predict it will be done in a month?

Let's say it did clear in a month, what is the aftermath of no one being in seat that long, how many cases/votes/legislation etc has to be put on hold? How does that affect the overall masses?

Let's weigh in, does anyone know or can list the majority of the consequences of waiting a month up to possibly a couple years vs the alternative?

I assume an interim person could be put in place but is the interim person appropriate? Is this just a giant ploy by the governing bodies to push or hold back legislation because of the personal views of the justice in question, did this person being placed in seat ruin the plans of one party, and this whole thing is just a ploy to avoid that, the consequences of which are probably a bigger crime in and of itself even though it's not one in this country(yet).

Or go down the conspiracy theory plot, this was just a big scam to draw attention away from something else going on in the world or elsewhere so we don't pay attention to it.

How much weight has to be put into every decision before we never actually make one?

I think it's important to recognize that legality and morality are not synonyms. Trying to shove them together is a bit naïve.

The holocaust was legal. Slaughter of indigenous peoples was legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal.
Burning of women on stakes was legal. Hammering people to crosses and leaving them to rot in the elements was legal. Child marriage was legal. To pour gasoline on the fire…. Abortion is legal.

The laws that the state has chosen are not indicators of morality. Laws are how we try to define our moral fiber as a society, but I'd argue that without any actual continuity we don't have one, particularly in this day and age. We're not the borg with a single streamlined and cohesive consciousness. If anything, we're the polar opposite, divided into a seriously dizzying array of moral perspectives. Unless we develop a single personality with no wavering or individuality, we're stuck with the messy system we have, one wherein the laws sortof cover the basics of morality but really just leaves a lot to debate. That's just considering laws within one country- the clash of different laws between different nations just adds more to the mess.

We simply can't push the two together. They're water and oil and they'll never form a clean mixture. Laws just can't reflect the individuality of morality, as demonstrated by my abortion dig.

Someone earlier mentioned that morality is subjective.
I agree. Each person decides for themselves what they think is morally right and wrong. Generally, in deciding where their line lies, religion and family and community upbringings have heavy influence. The line is mobile, of course, according to life experience. But it's individual. For example, reporting those hiding Jews was the law. Certainly wasn't very moral, was it? But it was legal. People had to have this very discussion with themselves and decide which outweighed the other, or decide that they were willing to change their morals.

Carlos, you said that:
"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."

That clearly doesn't work. People kill each other over petty, petty things; mattresses and parking spots. That's not self governance, that's just some bullshit king-of-the-hill mentality, knocking down whoever gets in the way with no regard for people as people. Gangs exercise that kind of governance and the casualties are beyond measure. Not just those guilty of whatever constitutes a crime to gangs, but innocents.

Kyrin, You keep saying "morality was served".
Morality was not served. Legality was served. The two are separate. See above.

As to the kavanaugh proceedings, since despite the disclaimer this thread is very much about our political views:

I've been sexually assaulted. I've been one chance passerby away from being raped. I'm been threatened with rape.
I have no proof. No evidence, no witnesses(no idea who the passerby was) no pictures or recordings.
I never reported any of those situations. I was scared, didn't have proof, didn't think anyone would believe me.
The lack of material does not mean those things didn't happen to me and does not give innocence to those who did them.
And this past week… This past week I watched as America told survivors she would *never* believe them, it didn't matter, she didn't care, and beyond that… That they would be outright called a liar, that death threats would be sent, that they would even be mocked by the president(that was a fun treat to watch)

I've worked the cases, I know the numbers.
I know there are fakes, and those should be persecuted.
But the number of fakes doesn't come close to the number of the unreported and the callousness American demonstrated ensured those unreported numbers will rise, while giving power to the ones who commit these crimes.
I will always believe the survivors.

On to my opinion of him, free from my experiences:
His spitting and yelling, and outright refusal to answer some of the questions make him unfit, in my opinion. They have to debate some pretty serious stuff up there and I'd prefer somebody with a more chill disposition to be one of the votes on those kinds of heavy decisions.
The following quote from him is also particularly troubling to me, considering the current situation going on with the man who selected him. Should he secure some sort of immunity along the lines as he talks about, particularly if Meullers investigation is fruitful, legality and morality get called into question again. It just *feels* shady and slimy, without even taking into account the accusations.

In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics … The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis ... And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President ... The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.
SOURCESOURCE

(edit for a word)

Rex wrote: Uzima, your whole point revolves around social contract theory, and I'm not going to bandy that when there are millions of different sources for it already. Needless to say, just because you think you're responsible enough to do something doesn't mean everyone is.

Just because some aren't responsible doesn't mean everyone else has to answer for them. If we respect The Force, we must respect the inherent freedom it gives each individual person..

In society, Freedom exists in a trifecta. Morality, Knowledge, and Law. When any of these are too little or too large, freedom cannot exist. Christian Morality trumped Knowledge and Law at one point in America's history. Now money and power trump all three. The degrading of our morality, manipulation of our information, and corruption of our laws have destroyed the social contract predicated on the liberty of the people who made it and "their posterity". The two things that it was created to limit have become the center pieces. As long as this "Hunger Game of Thrones" mentality exists freedom can't and will not..

Not that to look down on your experiences, but what are law's for then?

Yes many things that used to be legal were tragedy's in hindsight, maybe in current views at the time, I mean we had a few world war's if I recall over such debates.

But what are law's but our attempt to come to an agreement of morality. We created a law about having sex with a minor because we came to an agreement that the morality of doing so was bad. The law didn't manifest itself for no reason, it's not there for its own agenda...Granted the debates and differences in views of morality, of what is moral, and what is not, creates a significant...."lag" between when laws get changed/created/removed etc...then you take the fact that our views of our existence, the world, what is right and wrong, as well as changes in technology and science change our moral views faster then laws can often keep up. But to say they are oil and water I don't personally agree with, there simply just isn't a fluid enough system to keep laws up to date that a consensus of the population can agree on vs the speed in which our world evolves...at least of my opinion of it. Then you mix in the.......lack of...knowledge...or probably some better chosen words where people who do get to the point where they can vote, or give an opinion on something are doing so without being fully informed, which creates a whole lot of noise, which just makes it worse. You would think with today's technology that would be a simpler task, but rather it seems people are taking advantage of it to push their own agenda's by controlling what does and doesn't get out there about any particular scenario...but that will spark a tangent debate for another thread another time.

I need to point out something very important being missed in this entire conversation. THIS HAS NOT BEEN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. I couldn't even begin to count how many times this is being missed.

If we are going to question the legality and morality of these proceedings, let's get the definition of the proceedings correct first. This was a confirmation hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee first, and then by the Senate as a whole. It is essentially a JOB INTERVIEW. If Kavanaugh was not confirmed, he goes back to his cushy seat as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court. No harm, no foul. He could have walked away at any moment for any reason and nobody could have stopped him.

Additionally, Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh can still be investigated. Criminal charges can still be brought against him. As a Supreme Court Justice, he can be impeached. He, she, or both can still be charged with perjury in front of the Senate if either is caught in a lie. Other witnesses can still be compelled to testify in a court of law regarding criminal charges. None of this has happened yet, and still remains on the table.

What HAS happened is a political circus orchestrated by the party in power to put an individual in a seat on the Supreme Court in order to guarantee a conservative majority on the bench for years, maybe decades, to come. Make no mistake about it. This wasn't about legality or morality. It was a political power play and it was executed to perfection. Despite what the media and Democrats would have us believe, there was never any question of Kavanaugh's confirmation happening. If there was, he would have been removed from consideration and replaced by any number of other equally conservative and agreeable candidates by the GOP. Nobody will ever convince me that there wasn't even one other conservative judge in the entire United States of America qualified for this position that didn't carry all of this bullshit baggage along with them. This was President Trump and Mitch McConnell whipping them out, DESPITE the effects it will have on American legality and morality. Giving the middle finger to women and liberals was more important than any moral considerations. Trump gets to take this to his base and call it "WINNING".

If you ask me, we're all missing the bigger crisis here. Instead of fighting over who was the bigger asshole in this particular instance, maybe we should be focused on what kind of precedent we just set for every future political appointment to a position of power. This entire shameful proceeding has thrown almost 230 years of Constitutional checks and balances in the garbage and demonstrated that seats on our most powerful court can be bought as easily as the Senators who voted for it.

Oil and water wasn't really the best metaphor. It's an extreme example of how the two don't necessarily represent each other.

Laws as an attempt to come to an agreement on morality is a good concept. But it's just an attempt, agreement hasn't really been achieved, as evidenced by the sheer amount of crime committed on a daily basis. Our morality is not in line with our laws and vise versa.
We created the law to stop people from having sex with minors, not because the morality of people was compelling them to stop, not because they *wanted* to stop. Consider all the 17 year olds being hounded about their 18th birthdays. The law is holding them back, not their moral qualms of having sex with a minor.

The idea that terrible bads happened in the past and we've evolved our morality is nice and I agree that we've evolved past many morally horrifying things, but I don't think we've arrived at any sort of nirvana. In 50 or 100 years, I feel that we'll be looking back on this period the same as we currently look back at some of those.