Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

I would say any sex crime would be legitimately considered under the criteria you list 'responsible, reliable, or safe employee', unless maybe you were hiring for a work-at-home position.

Also, CA is significantly more strict than other states about employee rights.

Also, the point of people saying it's a job interview is to contrast it with a criminal proceeding, not to say it follows exactly the same process as a hiring process (he's already a federal employee, so a better comparison would be a job promotion decision, not a hiring decision).

barfo

 

I meant "biased, already had a goal in mind when the investigation started" Strozk analogue, not a counterespionage "expert".

You have a lot more faith in the FBI's week's work than I, but I agree--just one possibility.

I think that my point is (without getting too Monday-morning QB or Perry Mason) that setting up a second door in a remodel for rental purposes makes sense. Talking to a psychiatrist about it years later (or mixing up the dates, I'll submit is a possibility) and not dropping names, but talking about witnesses (who deny it) and saying that it's not for rentals, it's for PTSD, about the time that he became a Circuit Judge, seems like there's something else to the story.

Fair enough, but nobody puts "went to sleep early because I didn't get invited to the cool kids' party" on the calendar, either. And I'd submit that, up until a week ago, you may have said "nobody details the shit out of their high school life and holds onto it for 40 years", either. But I think it's telling that he has things like workouts and practice on there, and not a lot of parties (based on what very little I saw...I could be wrong on that). I don't think anyone on the Judiciary Committee had any idea there would BE calendars. For sure Dr. Ford doesn't have any.

 

That's kind of the point, right? She doesn't remember any details, except that the ones she does (that don't involve the names Kavanaugh and/or Judge) have been wrong.

 

Because I said it's illegal to ask these things in interviews, and Barfo asked specifically what for.

 

It's odd that this is the place where you become the bastion of law and order But having an exemplary work record for 40 years, including multiple background investigations and "promotions" to higher courts? No, I don't think an arbiter would pass that a 40y/o allegation allows you to discriminate. But as you said, this isn't a job interview. One down!

 

I would submit that the analogue to your story is that if you said all those things, and your aunt and uncle said "not only did we never have a farm, but cupwizier never even came to our house." Your rooster story, while believable (I've heard plenty of "mean rooster" stories, including on my at-the-time 2y/o) would be total bullshit.

 

I'm intrigued by this. Legally, all a past work reference (not a personal one, but those generally aren't negative) can say is "yes, so-and-so worked here during this time period in this position, with this job description." A lot of people state that they can ask old employers about strengths and weaknesses, performance, etc. They can't say "and got poor performance ratings," Or "but stole from the coffee and snack counter", Or "always took Milton's cake," without opening themselves up to defamation suits, which generally go the way of the worker (at least as far as I've seen, and 2 HR departments have advised. YMMV).

That's fair. What did you think of Thomas and Sotomayor?

 

Yeah, that's gonna be interesting. The timing of the allegations (especially with Feinstein holding on to them so long) seemed off. I mean, Ford comes out with her story of groping and drunken assault, and starts a whole bunch of (on Kavanaugh's side) "we stand with him, he's never done that kind of thing, we weren't even there" stuff. Then the D-in-the-face allegation comes out and people say "we've never even heard rumors that this stuff happened." Then a woman with a history of defamation lawsuits and restraining orders says that he's a participant in multiple train-gang rapes. Yet none of those participants, victims, onlookers, etc. ever brought up any of that in the past. Is the expectation that someone says "I never said anything because you only asked about drunken groping and penis waving. But if we're talking train-rapes? Hell yeah he did that shit, and I was there!"?

Put a different way...if he WAS completely innocent, and these women were doing the equivalent of the Tawana Brawley story, how would you expect him to fight it?

 

You don't think I'm a law and order guy? Anyway, I definitely don't want to hire any sex offenders and (as far as I know) I haven't done so.

It's obviously a confirmation hearing and not a job interview. I'm not sure why you feel the need to debunk that - like I said, it's only a job interview in comparison to a criminal proceeding.

But I think you are wrong about the 'discrimination'. If my policy is that I don't hire felons, I don't have to worry about not hiring someone with a old felony conviction.
If it is only an arrest but not a conviction, then I'd be on shakier ground (some states allow it, some don't).

barfo

 

I don't know... maybe call for an FBI investigation to clear his name? Or at least not oppose it.

How is it that everyone thought Bill Cosby was such a great guy for so many years?

barfo

 

Planet Government, possibly? I would guess that the government is much more rigid about following its own rules to the letter than private businesses are.

barfo

 

It's only because I've seen it in multiple places over the last week, in terms of "he doesn't get protections, it's a job interview for life, not due process for a criminal matter." Nope, if it was a job interview he'd still have protections against stuff like this, as we've shown. Anyway, that's why I felt the need to debunk--moving on!

Your part about policy for not hiring felons is counter to the EEOC Title VII. I'm not saying I agree or that you shouldn't be able to. I'm just saying the law says you're discriminating if you do.

 

I heard him say a bunch yesterday that he'll do whatever the committee wants. I'm presuming (since Feinstein deliberately brought up FBI) that it's included, but maybe not. He didn't oppose it a single time, for what I saw/heard, but I didn't see it all. But if you do want an investigation to "clear his name", you're not remembering your Biden: "The FBI explicitly does not, in this case or any case, reach a conclusion, period. Period." The committees can't rely on any FBI report "because they're inconclusive. They say 'he said', 'she said', 'they said'. Period...they do not reach conclusions and they don't make recommendations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...sed-against-democrats/?utm_term=.7d757fb07f0f

Dunno. How was it that the Duke Lacrosse team was destroyed?

 

Planet "company that has been sued for defamation." Planet "company that has been sued for discrimination" and "Planet company that deals with government contracts and has to abide by federal hiring practices." YMMV.

Of all the times I'm looking for a bleeding-heart liberal union rep or HR bubba to step in...crickets.

 

I think the law says I could be discriminating if I do. It says discriminating against felons might constitute discrimination against a protected class, if the protected class has more felons than the general population. But, I don't think that will be a case that can realistically be brought if I already have more of the protected class in my workforce than the general population. Or if all the felons I don't hire don't happen to be part of a protected class. Etc.

But overall, you are correct on this point. And the government - if it were a job interview, which neither of us thinks it is, but if it were - the government would not be able to consider the 40 year old felony conviction he doesn't have.

barfo

 

I'm sure you and he both recognized that it wasn't what the committee wanted, so he was dodging the question. He dodged it about 7 times.

Yeah, so what? I think everyone understands that the I stands for "Investigation" rather than "Conclusion".

They played badly. Poor coaching, poor execution. Probably too many 'skis the night before.

barfo