In the vast majority of cases, people's beliefs about what happened just so happens to align with what they want the outcome to be.
But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like there can be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy, politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I wrote "(very slightly)" above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I do not want Kavenaugh confirmed, but I can't pretend that the Republicans are the only ones willing to play dirty pool. They seem willing to go further, but both sides of the aisle have fallen considerably in the last few years, and they weren't that high to begin with.
That's a win for the nation, a loss for one man, and a push for both parties. Well, maybe a slight loss for Republicans, but they'll likely get their judge in the end, and with much less controversy, which they could use to their advantage later. It's not like they don't have plenty of judges to choose from (to be clear, they have a large list that would support their goals).
That we can't immediately get past this is sickening.
Then they should call a recess for some period of time that actually allows some preliminary investigation to happen (far more than a few days, but not more than a few months). My comments are with the understanding that they are unwilling to do so. In that case, they should move on.
Is it a win for the nation that someone can be successfully browbeaten into a political loss based on unsubstantiated accusations?
It would suck for him if innocent, but that is politics, and it definitely is something he accepted as a possibility along with the nomination. But I do not think he has a right to that position, and the nation's well-being comes far-ahead of any sort of right he might expect anyway. Serving is a privilege, we should not all suffer for his privilege.
Thanks. I attribute that mostly to some poor wording on my part, where I said "But I do not think he has a right to that position" to mean "he's not entitled". Unfortunately it's easily misinterpreted as "so should not get it".
> the chances of any investigation having any guilty/innocent resolution, given that the alleged crime happened 35 years ago and even very recent rapes basically boil down to he said/she said, is very low
That may be, but accusations such as this deserve to be investigated. In the general sense because someone is accusing someone else of (what is usually charged as) a felony assault, and this specific case because we do not want someone like that in power, for multiple reasons (even if we assume he's entirely changed, the blackmail potential if proof does surface is problematic).
> I've seen no blow to credibility to anyone, despite there having been quite a few highly-publicised rape cases that were proven to be false.
I think it's a matter of opportunity and reason. Most accusers probably aren't linked to (or more importantly and accurately, able to be implied as linked to) a coherent adversarial cause backed by an organization and ideology.
What that basically means is that next time, instead of a nominee on the stand talking about what sounds like a conspiracy theory about the Clintons and Democrats doing a concerted smear campaign that isn't true, they'll be able to point at a specific prior instance as evidence. That's extremely powerful.
His friend stated he called him up to coach him what to say about the rape accusations, at a date supposedly before he ever learned about the accusation (per his sworn testimony before congress). i.e. Kav was fully aware that an accusation was going to come out (because it is likely true).
Apart from that, there's his hilariously transparent lies about his drinking and antics in the greek life. Everyone who's known him says he was the absolute model of a drunk frat party boy, hell his friend Mark Judge published a book about it. And yes, drunk college antics are not a huge deal (as long as he didn't rape anybody), but lying to congress's faces is perjury regardless.
This isn't a courtroom and we don't have to reach an ironclad verdict on the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not appoint a perjurer who is trying to coach his witnesses to a lifetime appointment in a powerful political seat.