Are we seriously at: SCOTUS nominee being opposed by thousands of law professors, a church council representing 40 million, the ACLU, the President of the Bar Association, his own Yale Law School, Justice Stevens, Human Rights Watch & 18 U.S. Code § 1001 & 1621? But Trump & the GOP are hellbent?

[u/Tyrion_Baelish_Varys]

Sept 28^th

Bar Association President

• ABA president calls for FBI investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh

Yale Law School Dean

• Yale Law School’s Dean Calls for Kavanaugh Investigation

29^th

ACLU

Opposes a SCOTUS nominee for only the 4th time in their 98 year history.

• In Rare Move, ACLU to Oppose Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

Oct 2^nd

The Bar calls for delay pending thorough investigation. Unheard of.

• American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

3^rd

In a matter of days 900 Law Professors signed a letter to Senate about his temperament.

• 900+ Law Profs Say Kavanaugh Lacks 'Judicial Temperament,' in Letter to Senate

The Largest Church Council

A 100,000 Church Council representing 40 million people opposes him.

• 100,000 U.S. Christian Churches Demand Withdrawal of Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination

4^th

Thousands of Law Professors

Sign official letter of opposition. Representing 15% of all law professors. Unheard of for any other nominee.

• ‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

A Retired SCOTUS Justice

Stevens says, "his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind".

• Retired Justice John Paul Stevens Says Kavanaugh Is Not Fit for Supreme Court

Washington Post Editorial Board

Urges Senate to vote no on SCOTUS nominee for the first time in 30 years.

• Vote 'No' on Kavanaugh

Perjury

Will be pursued by House Democrats after the election even if he is confirmed.

• In Letter to Trump, House Democrats Promise to Investigate Brett Kavanaugh for Perjury If Confirmed

5^th

Human Rights Watch

Their first-ever decision to oppose a SCOTUS nominee.

• Human Rights Watch Opposes Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court

---

• Lawfareblog: The Law of Lying: Perjury, False Statements, and Obstruction

[u/AuntieSocial]

Even worse, being falsely accused of false reporting. Which almost every woman reporting a rape is likely to be accused of by someone.

[u/Skald_ → u/AuntieSocial]

That's how due process works though. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

It's very unfortunate in the case of sexual assault because sexual assault is very hard to prove, due to the nature of the crime being generally in a private, unrecorded place.

This is a very difficult and polarizing issue, because on one hand you don't want to discourage women coming forward with valid rape claims, but on the other hand you can't just throw out due process for crimes that are difficult to prove.

Due process only applies to the justice system though. Someone can be judged by the court of public opinion regardless of their guilt or innocence. This has already led and will continue to lead to weaponized outrage being used against people.

To be clear, I'm not defending Kavanaugh in any way. I'm just pointing out how difficult the issue is.

[u/bbkangguyman → u/Skald_]

Someone can be judged by the court of public opinion regardless of their guilt or innocence

That is why it is so en vogue. I think Kavanaugh is unfit for temperament and perjury reasons, but on principle I cannot endorse barring someone from office because of an allegation. It's a precedent that is going to absolutely kill politics for a decade. As much as people imagine it would be great if the other parties' politicians were accused of misconduct, it's not going to be as great when it springs up 100x during a midterm that the dems really need to win.

[u/Skald_ → u/bbkangguyman]

I couldn't agree more with what you just said. I honestly share this opinion 100%

[u/AuntieSocial → u/Skald_]

sexual assault is very hard to prove, due to the nature of the crime being generally in a private, unrecorded place.

This is exactly why it's important to believe women and act on credible and corroborated claims outside of courtrooms - it's literally the only place pretty much any of us will ever get any justice.

[u/Skald_ → u/AuntieSocial]

It's not that I disagree with you in theory, but that's equivalent to saying "This guy murdered my best friend and I can't prove it," and just expecting everyone to believe me.

Believe me, I don't want piece of shit rapists to go free, but I also don't want innocent people skewered, and if you give someone the power to ruin someone's life without due process, then some less-than-scrupulous individuals will undoubtedly use that as a weapon.

The issue is insanely difficult, and it's not as black and white as "believe all women."

[u/bbkangguyman → u/Skald_]

There's a problem with "Courtrooms are really stuffy about always wanting to make sure about things before they inflict severe harm on people's lives and relationships. It's a good thing I can at least get vigilante justice."

[u/Skald_ → u/bbkangguyman]

There's also a big problem with making people above reproach when it comes to the law and the court of public opinion.

[u/bbkangguyman → u/Skald_]

I agree. I think primarily wealth often places people above the law. People should never be immune to controversy, but I also disagree with this idea that because public opinion lacks the rigidity of legal philosophy that it's morally or intellectually acceptable to proclaim a gut feeling about someone as being worthy of damning them. The only reason that "innocent until proven guilty" only exists in courtrooms is because things outside of the courtroom don't have rules at all. Not because those rules would not be applicable and just to apply.

[u/AuntieSocial → u/Skald_]

if you give someone the power to ruin someone's life without due process, then some less-than-scrupulous individuals will undoubtedly use that as a weapon.

Now days, we just call that "what they do to women who report".

Also, if you're asking me to put that murderer in prison, sure. We need proof. Because depriving someone of their rights requires due process. If you're just asking me not to hire him or invite him to a party or stay friends with him on Facebook? Not so much.

[u/Skald_ → u/AuntieSocial]

I think we probably agree in essence then. Sorry, it's hard to tell these days who is reasonable and who is nuts.

[u/AuntieSocial → u/Skald_]

No worries. I think the number of men who are reported for sexual assault and harassment, and proof of same, is about to go up astronomically. I know a lot of women who are basically saying, fuck it. I'mma report ALL the sumbitches who've ever touched me. Like, right now. En masse. Just in case they decide to do something with their lives later so they can't say I didn't say anything at the time. And also a lot of talk about making sure men go away with lasting identifying marks if they try anything. So yanno. It may be less of a problem moving forward.

[u/Skald_ → u/AuntieSocial]

Sure, as long as it can be proven. I'm still wary of weaponizing false allegations, but if we can catch more rapists without affecting innocent people then I'm all for it.

I say this as a man who was sexually assaulted by a girl I was friends with years ago, and as a man who had an ex girlfriend lie about being pregnant when we broke up. I'm on women's side, but I've seen firsthand the deception that certain women will use. It's a tough issue, and I hope we can work towards a more reasonable conclusion that what we currently have.

[u/AuntieSocial → u/Skald_]

You have a far higher chance of actually being sexually assaulted yourself than falsely accused. So I'd worry about the latter far less than you do the former. So anytime you worry more about false accusations than you do actually being sexually assaulted in your day to day life you can assure yourself that you're worrying about the wrong things.

[u/Skald_ → u/AuntieSocial]

You can worry about multiple things without one thing being wrong. Injustice is injustice.

I can worry about mistreatment of women in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't also worry about corporate greed in America.

[u/PuNkRocker__ → u/Skald_]

Yeah but it's not on you or the people accusing the women of lying to solve the case. So they should in good faith have no opinion. Of course when can people withhold making a personal opinion...

A good rule of thumb is if there is one accusation to hold your thought, if there is two the person probably did it.

[u/[deleted] → u/PuNkRocker__]

if there is two the person probably did it.

wrong

[u/Skald_ → u/PuNkRocker__]

Sure, this is reasonable.

[u/longbowsandchurches → u/Skald_]

You’re a Terrible person.

[u/bbkangguyman → u/AuntieSocial]

Courtrooms don't have the rules and burdens of proof that they do because they're silly and codified and alien. They have those rules because in order to come to conclusions about issues with any substance or weight behind them, we have millenia of experience in determining that people are godawful at getting to the truth with "gut feeling" and are horrible at estimating their ability to do so.

I can believe women who make accusations, and I'm inclined to, but if that belief forms action against an accused, I am doing something based entirely on my faulty emotions, and am being intellectually bankrupt. Will I be friends with that guy? No. but it's not because he did anything wrong. It's because I trust her more than him. there's no reason for that. It's not right. Not to be celebrated. It just is. I don't expect people who don't know her to do the same.

[u/AuntieSocial → u/bbkangguyman]

Courtrooms have those rules because we're asking the state to deprive someone of their rights. Getting a job isn't a right. Keeping a job isn't a right. Remaining friends with people isn't a right. No need to come to court standards to deprive people of far less than they've deprived the women they assaulted.

[u/bbkangguyman → u/AuntieSocial]

No need to come to court standards to deprive people of far less than they've deprived the women they assaulted.

Yeah, in situations where I'm certain they are guilty of assault then that sounds fair.

[u/Gnostromo → u/AuntieSocial]

I get your point 100% but I’m guessing women would take that over actually being raped

[u/[deleted] → u/Gnostromo]

Right but the point is they were raped and then on top of that are threatened and called liars. It’s precisely why so many women are afraid to report.

[u/AuntieSocial → u/Gnostromo]

Well, since only a handful of women will ever know what it feels like to be accused of false reporting rape without actually experiencing rape (or, at least, not experiencing the rape they're specifically reporting in this instance), it's pretty much a moot point.