There are two Kavanaugh nominations. Within America’s two big information universes, two unshakable narratives have taken hold. No matter how it turns out, these contradictory narratives will persist, doing lasting damage to the country. (THREAD)
-
-
Red bubble has rejected my argument. I point out that SCOTUS confirmations aren't criminal trials, so beyond a reasonable doubt isn't the appropriate standard. Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch all cleared the high bar, and another conservative could too. Red bubble disagrees. 8/x
Show this thread -
The partisan fight is all-consuming. Because red bubble’s unshakable premise is Dems are unjustly smearing Kavanaugh, giving in elevates mob justice, incentivizing future made up accusations. And Dems might win the Senate, blocking any conservative. It’s Kavanaugh or bust. 9/x
Show this thread -
Blue bubble's caught up in the partisan fight too. Kavanaugh's position on abortion today is evidence he committed attempted rape in high school. Other white, prep school, ivy league men have committed sexual assault, which makes him more suspect. He's more symbol than man. 10/x
Show this thread -
In a little while, Kavanaugh will withdraw, get confirmed, or voted down. But the competing red and blue narratives about him will persist. The wounds will fester, no matter how it turns out. And the judicial wars will continue to escalate. The system cannot hold forever. (END)
Show this thread -
PS1: Erick Erickson shared the 7th tweet of my thread (to disagree with it). His position, along with the replies to his tweet and mine, provide a good example of red bubble rejecting my argument (as I explained in tweet 8 above). https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1044267025944793089 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
PS2: You'll notice a steadfast conviction that: 1) All accusations against Kavanaugh are false and invented by Dems 2) The same will happen with every future GOP nominee 3) Pointing out that no one accused Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts of sexual assault does not shake convictions 1 & 2
Show this thread -
PS3: In the variations of "believe women" and "I believe Dr. Blasey Ford," blue bubble steadfastly believes Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault. These two competing narratives dominate their respective information bubbles. They cannot be reconciled and will linger for years.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Good analysis. Saving.
-
Thanks, I appreciate you saying that.
-
I appreciate your insight. If both sides can't find common ground - wait for the evidence to convict or clear Kavanaugh - and he's voted down or confirmed, the bubbles entrench. If he withdraws, both sides could wipe the slate clean and deal with a new nominee or entrench anyway.
-
They'll entrench anyway somewhat (about everything). But I think it would play out differently if the nominee were someone who is squeaky-clean in his personal life (like Roberts or Gorsuch), especially if it's a woman.
-
With Kavanaugh defiant in his latest letter - "these are smears, plain and simple," both sides surely will entrench, but there a handful of Senators are sitting on the fence. They will choose who gets the victory in this fight. No easy way out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps the way forward is a change whereby the Senate nominates candidates and a referendum is held whereby the voting public choose the their Judges for life. It's got to be better than trial by media, cheaper and above all fair.
-
I don't see a Constitutional amendment that strips the executive of the power to nominate judges as remotely likely.
-
Do you think its a better system? A 200 plus year old system that to the voter appears foundered on shifting sentiments of a vocal and empowered electorate should suggest a revision. What do you think of change?
-
I don't think a popular referendum would be better. Subjecting judges to electoral politics, especially at that level, creates problematic incentives. For example, they'd fund-raise.
-
No mate, the Senate nominates them. There's no lobbying that already isn't going on and let's be objective; it could not be more political than it is today. When I think of what is going to happen when a Dem Gov proposes a liberal candidate in the future, believing this system
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah... but it’s a slippery slope to not being able to nominate accused sexual predators for President or Speaker of the House.
-
Right, so let’s definitely convict people without eyewitnesses or hard evidence. Hearsay rules the day moving forward. I’m sure these new rules will never bite you in the ass.
-
Convict? No. I explicitly argue in the article that the publicly available evidence does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for conviction in a criminal trial. But we're not talking about a criminal trial.
-
Yes, we all know this is not an actual criminal trial. But it is literally a “show trial” designed to convict the man as a sexual predator in the court of public opinion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.