Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

[calvin natt]

Because it’s literally illegal for an employer to bring that up in a job interview.

I didn’t say the employer brought it up but yeah, see the forest through the trees my man

 

[barfo]

It's odd that this is the place where you become the bastion of law and order

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.

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!

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

 

[barfo]

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?

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

 

[calvin natt]

Let’s stick our heads in the sand and pretend people don’t get hired for reasons other than “they can’t perform the required job duties”. I’ve interviewed a ton of people. You walk in late you’re done. You smell bad you’re done. A google search that says you’ve been accused of sexual assault by three women, um sorry. What planet do you live on if you think this doesn’t happen?

 

[barfo]

Let’s stick our heads in the sand and pretend people don’t get hired for reasons other than “they can’t perform the required job duties”. I’ve interviewed a ton of people. You walk in late you’re done. You smell bad you’re done. A google search that says you’ve been accused of sexual assault by three women, um sorry. What planet do you live on if you think this doesn’t happen?

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

 

[BrianFromWA]

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.

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.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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

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

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

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

 

[BrianFromWA]

Let’s stick our heads in the sand and pretend people don’t get hired for reasons other than “they can’t perform the required job duties”. I’ve interviewed a ton of people. You walk in late you’re done. You smell bad you’re done. A google search that says you’ve been accused of sexual assault by three women, um sorry. What planet do you live on if you think this doesn’t happen?

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.

 

[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 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

 

[barfo]

I heard him say a bunch yesterday that he'll do whatever the committee wants.

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.

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."

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

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

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

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

The Democrats on the Hearing Committee are an an especially aggravating group. None more so than Blumanthal.

He brings up, Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus which means false in one thing, false in all things. This is especial rich since he claimed several times about his Vietnam service which never happened.

Just hearing from him is abrasive.

 

[Lanny]

A Washington DC circuit court judge has already ruled that such a test is appropriate when law enforcement is conducting a background check. Who was the judge?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Unsure, but polys are standard for some clearance levels. I wouldn't be shocked if he's taken one before, especially if he was a White House aide. But I'd be game.

Additionally, there are some, uh, stories I've heard that state it's not that hard to trick them. I don't know if he's that sophisticated, though.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

As long as every senator, congressman and up the chain of command do so as well. Yearly.

 

[Shaboid]

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).

Yeah, you're more experienced in than I am in this area, but that does sound about right. The final question though, which tells a lot about a former employee, "were they fired, did they quit, or was the employee let go for cause", can be answered truefully, no?

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

These things happened before I took any stake in politics and/or legal affairs, but I will do some research on them. I might get back to you. I might take a nap about it lol.

 

[yankeesince59]

Again, I'm not saying don't look at the personal history of Supreme Court nominees. I'm saying to call this a "job interview" means that you can't. So let's just stop that.

...it's simply a figure of speech and I don't think anyone using that term means it literally.

 

[yankeesince59]

I heard him say a bunch yesterday that he'll do whatever the committee wants.

...well, if the committee decides (which they eventually did) that there will be an FBI investigation he doesn't really have a choice, does he? So his answer isn't really compelling in any way.

 

[yankeesince59]

The Democrats on the Hearing Committee are an an especially aggravating group. None more so than Blumanthal.

He brings up, Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus which means false in one thing, false in all things. This is especial rich since he claimed several times about his Vietnam service which never happened.

Just hearing from him is abrasive.

...yes, because none of the GOP committee members are "aggravating" or "abrasive"..

 

[yankeesince59]

As long as every senator, congressman and up the chain of command do so as well. Yearly.

...how many of them are accused of rape like Kavanaugh?...but hey, don't stop there, let's go ahead and include governors, mayors, councilmen, cops, sheriffs, etc., and while you're at it why not also include all regular citizens such as yourself?....yeah, great idea.

 

[Lanny]

As long as every senator, congressman and up the chain of command do so as well. Yearly.

Let's start with nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court who have credible allegations of sexual attack.

 

[Lanny]

Unsure, but polys are standard for some clearance levels. I wouldn't be shocked if he's taken one before, especially if he was a White House aide. But I'd be game.

Additionally, there are some, uh, stories I've heard that state it's not that hard to trick them. I don't know if he's that sophisticated, though.

Maybe a routine polygraph expert might get easily fooled but I seriously doubt that a trained FBI agent could be that easily fooled.

 

[stampedehero]

Unsure, but polys are standard for some clearance levels. I wouldn't be shocked if he's taken one before, especially if he was a White House aide. But I'd be game.

Additionally, there are some, uh, stories I've heard that state it's not that hard to trick them. I don't know if he's that sophisticated, though.

They could ask riveting questions like what is your age and what do you do for a living? Isn't the test based on emotional reaction? If you are cold blooded, you can pass.

 

[stampedehero]

...how many of them are accused of rape like Kavanaugh?...but hey, don't stop there, let's go ahead and include governors, mayors, councilmen, cops, sheriffs, etc., and while you're at it why not also include all regular citizens such as yourself?....yeah, great idea.

Trump would approach it like it's a trophy.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Maybe a routine polygraph expert might get easily fooled but I seriously doubt that a trained FBI agent could be that easily fooled.

I think many have too high an opinion on what a polygraph can tell. I also believe you have too low am opinion on the caliber of polygraph examiners.

They could ask riveting questions like what is your age and what do you do for a living? Isn't the test based on emotional reaction? If you are cold blooded, you can pass.

I believe this is the case as well.

 

[Sedatedfork]

I don’t think he should be required to take one. He might be asked if he would be willing to take one.

 

[Sedatedfork]

They use polys all the time in sex offender treatment. So they have a purpose. I honestly wouldn’t begrudge him if he opts not to take one though. I don’t want to take one and I have never met Dr Ford and have never sexually assaulted anyone

 

[PtldPlatypus]

They use polys all the time in sex offender treatment. So they have a purpose. I honestly wouldn’t begrudge him if he opts not to take one though. I don’t want to take one and I have never met Dr Ford and have never sexually assaulted anyone

I would have a lot of difficulty trusting someone else's reading of my physical responses to potentially antagonistic questioning, when my career and reputation are at stake. No way to know if the person conducting the examination has any sort of built in preconceptions that might color their line of questioning or their interpretation of the squiggles.

But if I were in his place, and fully innocent of everything I'd been accused of, I'd probably do it. However, I have a very calm and detached demeanor as a rule, so I wouldn't be particularly worried about my emotions getting the better of me if I didn't like the questions. Don't think the same can necessarily be said for the judge.

 

[CupWizier]

I didn’t say the employer brought it up but yeah, see the forest through the trees my man

That was my point to Brian that he never addresssed. In the hypothetical the employee divulged the info.

 

[CupWizier]

...yes, because none of the GOP committee members are "aggravating" or "abrasive"..

marzy gets easily confused.

 

[CupWizier]

The Democrats on the Hearing Committee are an an especially aggravating group. None more so than Blumanthal.

He brings up, Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus which means false in one thing, false in all things. This is especial rich since he claimed several times about his Vietnam service which never happened.

Just hearing from him is abrasive.

Yeah, cause guys like Grassley, Graham, Jordan, Gowdy etc. have been really sweet guys, lmao! You are so biased it's pathetic.