Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

What has become clear over the past 100 years or so is that people have ideas, and they work to find logic to support them working backwards. Laws all need interpretation, there's no way around it. And by ideas, it appears to mean ethical frameworks these days. The interpretation of laws is very much based on the ethical framework of a person even if they possess the same logic.

The proxy for the parties then become the judicial versions of literal constitutionalism (Republicans today, more literal typically means more conservative) and statutory interpretation (liberals), which then cause a clear split in conclusion for many cases, increasingly so.

This is a natural reflection of American society slowly drifting and polarizing into two groups of thought, and judges are human minds, not computers.

Probably best to not dig into the details too much since this thread isn't about that, but I personally absolutely understand why they characterized it as an "unhinged mob", given you had a very transparent attempt to fabricate a life-altering rape claim in order to hold up a nomination.

I watched every minute of the hearing, read the memo released by Rachel Mitchell (the lawyer hired by the Republicans to ask questions in their stead), and did a bunch of other research around the issue, and it became clear to me that the story was completely fabricated, given that even close friends of the accuser could not corroborate her story, let alone the party itself ever having existed, and Kavanaugh produced a (weirdly) meticulous calendar that showed that he wasn't in the area whatsoever.

Personally, I am a strong believer that sexual assault is a criminal matter. It's not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades, having never stored any memorandums of the alleged crime (the therapist notes did not name Kavanaugh specifically and were relatively recent), and then try to spring on someone to prevent their appointment. If you really think someone is a rapist, you should try to put them in jail, not just stop them from taking a political position. (And yes, I understand that often victims do not want to bring up criminal charges and I understand why. But if you haven't documented any real evidence, trying to bring up an issue 3-4 decades later is just totally absurd. These are life-destroying claims being made here. Ford (the accuser) had NO EVIDENCE (the "therapist's notes" did not identify Kavanaugh, or go into any detail into the supposed act)).

Anyway, I've rambled enough. Sorry for the wall of text, but I really hate how so many friends of mine to this day still think Kavanaugh is a rapist without a shred of evidence; indeed, it's worse than that because all the evidence makes me personally feel that this was a case of outright deceit rather than false memory or a simple mixup. There were just too many contradictions and changes to the story and lack of detail where it really mattered to make the allegation even remotely credible, even if we use a "there's reasonable cause to believe he was a rapist" standard. That is to say that I don't think Blasey Ford met even an incredibly weak standard of evidence.

I can't believe the amount of hate and flaming and demonization of a lady I've seen online as this one, she cared about people and the poor and the abused, I think our country is losing its way, and I don't know when we'll ever see her kind of compassion on the bench again.

It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you. If we disagree about a military intervention, that's a life and death issue and I shouldn't have to be civil with you.

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia disagreed on just about all of these issues and got along fine. I don't think that's because they didn't care about their respective principles and about the issues that were at stake. I think it's because, as a point of fact, we have to live in a society with each other regardless of our differences. And most of those differences are genuinely rooted in good or at least understandable intentions in the first place.

50/50 split means the Vice President decides. Game over.