Legality and Morality in the Kavanaugh proceedings

08 Oct 2018 22:47 #327586 by Tellahane

Kehta Nier wrote: 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.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Oct 2018 08:22 #327655 by Uzima Moto
Law, first and foremost, is a product of reason. Not a subject of subjective impulses..

Morality is based on subjective experience. Not objective observation. This is why they don't mix well. We screwed up thinking law IS morality..

"Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem"
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Arisaig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Oct 2018 08:42 - 10 Oct 2018 08:53 #327656 by ren

Senan wrote: 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.

If there were good chances for a successful trial, how long would it take? What would the repercussions be? Why is a court politically biased, and finally, are people not concerned that whoever's got dirt on him essentially controls the supreme court?

The angry liberal mob is ensuring a conservative supreme court that serves private interests rather than the country's.

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

Last edit: 10 Oct 2018 08:53 by ren.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Senan, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Oct 2018 14:06 #327667 by Kyrin Wyldstar

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

Sorry but in this case you are wrong. All morality is subjective. It is only when we can agree upon certain presuppositions that it becomes objective. In the case of a society such as ours that agreement is well being of the individual based in empathy, equity and compassion. We derive this position through reason and evidence. In effect we learn some things are "wrong" because the evidence exists that show them to be detrimental to an individuals well being. For example rape and murder.

Once we have this agreed upon concept we as a nation then enact laws to protect that well being for all individuals in that nation. This is a process under constant evolution just as all morality is. And while not all laws are based in morality, such as traffic laws, many of them are and in particular the ones we are discussing here. One of the most sacred of these laws is innocent until proven guilty.

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”)

Now this thread is rife with hysterical claims that he is guilty and he should be sorry and he should have called for a hearing and he should have done this or that. Well Im sorry but as the one accused that is not his responsibility. It is the accusers. You all are trying to shift the burden of proof and that is not the way things are done in this country. Even so his confirmation was held up a week so the FBI could do yet another investigation into the claims and still found nothing noteworthy to stop the confirmation. So all these rants about how bad a person he is or how he should have taken responsibility for this are unfounded and even unmoral according to our standards of law.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprentice to: Mendalicious
The following user(s) said Thank You: Senan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.