October 5, 2018

"The Me Too movement is real. It matters. It is needed, and it is long overdue... I found [Ford's] testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling.

"I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events," said Senator Susan Collins, explaining her vote for Brett Kavanaugh. "We will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence."

Reported in "Collins and Manchin Will Vote for Kavanaugh, Ensuring His Confirmation" (NYT).

Here's a comment over there (with over 1,000 up votes):
Thank you Heidi Heitkamp, and thank you Lisa Murkowski for standing up for women and against sexual predators. And how about you Susan Collins? Do you want to be the only woman in the Senate to put a man creditably accused of sexual assault against multiple women who has clearly demonstrated his intent in the very recent Jane Doe case to eviscerate, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade? It's time to stand with your sisters and vote "No!" to white male power and privilege to avoid responsibility for sexual misconduct by blaming and mocking the women.
ADDED: Here's the Susan Collins speech:



Full text (NYT):
Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted [the Senate's advise-and-consent role] to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought....


Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
ADDED: I'm only quoting a portion of Collins's speech, which is quite substantial. Here is a much shorter speech from Senator Lisa Murkowski, the one Republican who is voting no:
This hasn’t been fair to the judge, but I also recognize that we need to have institutions that are viewed as fair and if people who are victims, people who feel that there is no fairness in our system of government, particularly in our courts, then you’ve gone down a path that is not good and right for this country. And so I have been wrestling with whether or not this was about qualifications of a good man or is this bigger than the nomination.

And I believe we’re dealing with issues right now that are bigger than the nominee and how we ensure fairness and how our legislative and judicial branch can continue to be respected. This is what I have been wrestling with, and so I made the — took the very difficult vote that I did.

I believe Brett Kavanaugh’s a good man. It just may be that in my view he’s not the right man for the court at this time. So I have taken my vote here this morning, I’m going to go back to my office and write a floor statement that is more fulsome and have the opportunity to have that.

But this has truly been the most difficult evaluation of a decision that I have ever had to make, and I’ve made some interesting ones in my career. But I value and respect where my colleagues have come down from in their support for the judge, and I think we’re at a place where we need to begin thinking about the credibility and integrity of our institutions.

215 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215
FIDO said...

We don't hate Althouse. We are simply noting her willful/painful/strategic/tribal naïveté and/or hypocrisy on THIS matter.

Now it is finally over, she seems to be walking back to something resembling objectivity.

Welcome back Althouse. We missed you the last two weeks. Your stand-in sucked.

tim in vermont said...

This hasn’t been fair to the judge, but I also recognize that we need to have institutions that are viewed as fair and if people who are victims, people who feel that there is no fairness in our system of government, particularly in our courts, then you’ve gone down a path that is not good and right for this country.

I would comment on this, but Althouse says that we can't mock people's IQ. On the other hand, if she was going for seeing how long she could walk a tightrope of irony, Murkowski is up around Strumpit territory. Maybe she had a private bet with Senator Blutarski on how big of a mockery she could make of the Senate and still have people go along.

tim in vermont said...

We don't hate Althouse. We are simply noting her willful/painful/strategic/tribal naïveté and/or hypocrisy on THIS matter.

I think you let your emotions carry you away a little bit, but whatever. Someday in a cafe, maybe you could explain to us how Western Civilization would have been better if Aristotle wasn't such a sellout. Though I have to admit that after reading enough comments by ARM with that Aristotle avatar, I did start to associate Aristotle with a kind of purblind stupidity.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Alaska’s indigenous tribes have lobbied Murkowski to vote no and they are an integral part of voting base.

Really? How very bizarre. Indigenous Alaskan people have 99 problems* and lying rich white Californians ain't one. Very surprised they'd be remotely interested in her irrelevant bullshit.


*Rampant drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, endemic health problems, pervasive actual - not fictional - sexual abuse, lack of economic opportunity, etc

Kevin said...

“If a majority of Alaskans have told her to vote down Kavanaugh, that would be reason enough. But they haven't, therefore she'd better have a Churchillian speech ready because nothing less than brilliance will save her political hide from recall or a primary challenge.”

Alaska’s indigenous tribes have lobbied Murkowski to vote no and they are an integral part of voting base.


This. With all sincerity, I think this is the pinnacle of Inga’s commenting.

Faced with an argument that Murkowski is going against the wishes of her constituents, Inga goes to the time-tested firmula of “yes but (just add interest group) will retaliate if she doesn’t do what I wish.”

It’s all just interest groups retaliating on that side of the argument, just reactionary forces reacting.

Start with women. What do they want? What will they be upset about if they don’t get? You don’t want women to be upset, do you?

And if the polls don’t support that, move to the next shaming group — like all black people, gay people, or indigenous people.

Because the point of democracy isn’t to express your needs or defend your rights, it’s to go through life without the wrong people being mad at you.

donald said...

The next one will be a woman. A woman with 7 children and an originalist philosophy.

So she probably isn’t an authentic woman. IYKWIMAITYD.

Kevin said...

“The next one will be a woman. A woman with 7 children and an originalist philosophy.“

They were saving her in case they lost the Senate. Won’t be as much fun with Lindsay Graham running the Judicual
Committee and a Republican majority.

FIDO said...

Someday in a cafe, maybe you could explain to us how Western Civilization would have been better if Aristotle wasn't such a sellout.

It would not. I like and appreciate Aristotle and Thales far more than Socrates and Plato, who was an Academic's Academic: theory unhamperd by reality and sense.

At least Aristotle got his hands dirty as he examined the world

Michael K said...

Trump knew he’d been vetted enough that there would be no real skeletons, and he no doubt expected that the Democrats would be so desperate they’d invent some. They would have done that with anyone he put up — but, precisely because Kavanaugh was a milquetoasty DC Establishment type, seeing the Democrats go into full batshit assault mode on him galvanized the other milquetoasty DC Establishment types.

I'm not even sure that was the planning but it sure worked out that way.

Amy Barrett is in reserve for Ginsberg. That will make this circus look tame. Her children will need bodyguards.

MB said...

See "Emma Zunz" for a great author's take on this phenomenon.

stlcdr said...

What the hell is wrong with Murkowski? Did she read what she wrote?

At what point and in what situation would Kavanaugh be good enough to sit on the supreme court? The Government isn't fair? In what way isn't it fair?!

Actually, scratch that last point: the only place it isn't fair is if you aren't on the government payroll...

mikee said...

TIL that "creditably accused" means "zero evidence beyond the accusation."
This wasn't even "he said, she said." It was "I don't want to say anything other than this vile accusation, anonymously. I'll delay saying it publicly except to the WaPo. If forced to testify publicly I won't produce anything beyond my accusation. I won't give you access to my social media or my therapist's notes to help demonstrate my veracity, in fact I'll scrub my social media months in advance to prevent that. I'll lie about all sorts of things to delay public testimony. Then I will be faced with an amazing defense against the charge, a contemporaneous detailed log of daily activities by the accused, which shows the extreme unlikelihood of my accusation being true. And nobody, not a single person, will back me up on my accusation."

Kavanaugh could have saved himself some time by stating simply, "This woman is accusing me without a shred of evidence. Make of her what you will, and damn you all for liars and fools if you say you believe her."

mikee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Kavanaugh could have saved himself some time by stating simply, "This woman is accusing me without a shred of evidence

If only that were possible. While possible does not equal probable, possible is politically congruent to probable, and this is where Democrats jumped the Ass.

Doug said...

“What we’re seeing is a change of the unwritten rules. Henceforth Supreme Court nominees will only be approved if the party in the White House also has a Senate majority. Another change of norms that Democrats will come to regret.”

Some voters never learn, and there will be McCains elected to the Senate again. So at least on the right side of the aisle, as long as there are TV cameras and lefty media, no vote for or against a nominee will be in the bag.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215   Newer› Newest»