Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Caitlyn Flanagan: "I Believe Her"

Flanagan's very reasonable.
I don't see that the truth is knowable without additional information that's not likely to manifest itself...though the truth did eventually emerge about the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas stuff.
   One thing that does, weirdly, stick in my head is the part of the story about Kavanaugh's friend stopping the alleged assault by jumping on them. That's so weird that it's somewhat difficult to believe that it's made up...if that makes any sense...
   Without additional information, however, I myself wouldn't press a button to torpedo the Kavanaugh nomination.


Blogger Pete Mack said...

Well, one thing does check out. Kavanaugh was a very heavy partier in HS and college. Yearbook pages really don't usually read like drunken babble.


5:50 PM  
Blogger Pete Mack said...

One thing getting lost in all this: Kavanaugh is not noted as any kind of legal scholar (unlike say Bork, who was certainly a scholar, if a kind of nutty one.) He certainly doesn't have tbmhe chops of an RBG or even Elizabeth Warren on the left. Instead, hus pre-court history is as a Republican operative: a mover and shaker in the Starr report--it doesn't get more political than that. I would like to see some questioning on theories of law. I doubt he has good answers, though he certainly is accomplished in evasion.

5:54 PM  
Anonymous darius jedburgh said...

That's so weird that it's somewhat difficult to believe that it's made up

That's actually my take on why the Socrates of Plato's 'early' dialogues pretty much has to be the historical Socrates.

8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm trying to understand your argument WS. You are saying that this allegation of attempted rape has some plausibility but may be unprovable. If it is unprovable--or if there's not enough evidence to raise it above a preponderance--then the Senate should move ahead and confirm him. If that's your position, it seems questionable to me.

Let's say all the available evidence creates a 30% chance he did this, and it turns out he in fact did it (though we will never know). Would you say that it would be the right move to confirm someone in this scenario? And even in the scenario where he didn't do it but the evidence we have is the same, why is it not the better course to choose someone else who is not being accused of a credible, though unproven, attempted rape? Wouldn't it be the better course to avoid getting it wrong when a SCOTUS nominee may have done something like this?

One explanation I could see for your position is that you don't really view the alleged misconduct as being that serious, so even if he did it, it shouldn't derail him unless we have more evidence. But you've said you do view it as very serious. Could you explain?

10:53 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

LOL I'm going to cite you on that, DJ

5:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home