Supreme court nominees

[mwigs]

Not even 1 person who Dr. Ford listed could even collaborate her story. Enough said.

 

[dvdjs]

They’ve struggled with that terribly…

How so? …

 

[Ender]

Now, if he remembered a fact that was in direct contradiction to Dr. Ford’s accusation, such as “Brett and I were touring Europe that summer” that would be a direct denial.

This is apparently the new standard for men: prove your innocence. Given that Ford hasn’t made a direct accusation with details that can actually be confirmed or denied, just exactly how is Kavanaugh to satisfy that demand? This show trial has degenerated to this: believe her because she is a woman; disbelieve him because he is a man. And before anyone thinks this is something women will get behind, it would be well to ask women who have husbands and sons how comfortable with this approach.

The most that can be said of Ford’s allegations is that they haven’t been conclusively disproved. On the other hand, how many of us could conclusively disprove someone’s charge that somewhere, some time in the summer of 1982 one of us did what she alleged? How can anyone possibly be comfortable with this travesty of due process?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Now, if he remembered a fact that was in direct contradiction to Dr. Ford’s accusation, such as “Brett and I were touring Europe that summer” that would be a direct denial.

This is apparently the new standard for men: prove your innocence. Given that Ford hasn’t made a direct accusation with details that can actually be confirmed or denied…

On the contrary, there were plenty of details that could be confirmed or denied. Little details like checking to see of Mark Judge really did work at the Potomac Safeway a few weeks after the incident where Dr. Ford claims to have seen him and he acted very embarrassed. Or checking with her therapist to see if any of the details she reported can be confirmed or denied. This is standard investigative stuff. I’m sure there are more avenues that I don’t know about but professionals do.

This show trial has degenerated to this: believe her because she is a woman,

First of all, this was not trial. That was mentioned explicitly during the hearings yesterday. Secondly, if you believe her, it would be not because she is a woman, but because of her demeanor and character in her testimony, the fact that she had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming forward, and that her testimony was not inconsistent with known facts.

The most that can be said of Ford’s allegations is that they haven’t been conclusively disproved.

Thank you for admitting that. There have been plenty of people on this forum who are saying they have already been conclusively disproved.

On the other hand, how many of us could conclusively disprove someone’s charge that somewhere, some time in the summer of 1982 one of us did what she alleged? How can anyone possibly be comfortable with this travesty of due process?

That is the risk we take to live in a world where a woman does not have to produce a sperm sample from her vagina and a notarized video of the attack before her accusations are taken seriously.

 

[Theo520]

That is not what projection is all about, and you know it.
Though to sustain a semantic argument that way.

You don’t get to redefine a word just to the definition you like, so you can feel indignant.

 

[Ender]

On the contrary, there were plenty of details that could be confirmed or denied. Little details like checking to see of Mark Judge really did work at the Potomac Safeway a few weeks after the incident where Dr. Ford claims to have seen him and he acted very embarrassed.

Little details…meaningless ones at that. Suppose we found out that Judge did work at the Safeway, what would that say about him “acting very embarrassed”? Exactly how is that detail supposed to be confirmed or refuted?

… if you believe her, it would be not because she is a woman, but because of her demeanor and character in her testimony…

Actually, I would believe or disbelieve a person based on evidence. Given that there is quite literally no evidence whatever that the incident ever happened, there is absolutely no logical reason to believe her.

Thank you for admitting that. There have been plenty of people on this forum who are saying they have already been conclusively disproved.

It is not so much that it is virtually impossible to conclusively disprove such an allegation, the US system of justice used to demand that such allegations be proved, not that they be disproved. Justice has been turned upside down. Everyone recognizes the injustice done to blacks a century ago when juries routinely believed their white accusers simply because they were white. There is no difference today in calling for a woman to be believed simply because she is a woman.

That is the risk we take to live in a world where a woman does not have to produce a sperm sample from her vagina and a notarized video of the attack before her accusations are taken seriously.

I guess “the risk we take” is simply being male, and by being “taken seriously” you mean a woman’s charge against a man, regardless of evidence, should be believed, period. Unless that woman is Juanita Broaddrick or course. The real risk we take is ever letting people with this mindset gain sufficient control to implement these travesties.

 

[Joe_5859]

I thought this was a pretty fair assessment of the situation:

PIERS: The day DC died of shame: Two broken souls publicly tortured

At one stage, Kavanaugh was actually grilled about flatulence - in the United States Senate by a serving United States senator. Think about that.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I think he means people who actually believe and promote church teachings. Nor Sotomayor, for example.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Kavanaugh has repeatedly said he is ok with whatever the Senate wants to do, including an FBI investigation. When asked why he has not called for an FBI investigation himself, he has stated that it is not his place nor within his control whatsoever to dictate what type of investigation is carried out, so the Senators should be directing that question elsewhere, not at him.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

On the contrary, there were plenty of details that could be confirmed or denied. Little details like checking to see of Mark Judge really did work at the Potomac Safeway a few weeks after the incident where Dr. Ford claims to have seen him and he acted very embarrassed.

Little details…meaningless ones at that. Suppose we found out that Judge did work at the Safeway, what would that say about him “acting very embarrassed”? Exactly how is that detail supposed to be confirmed or refuted?

I cited that detail as an opportunity to poke a hole in Dr. Ford’s story if it turned out Mark Judge never worked at that Safeway.

… if you believe her, it would be not because she is a woman, but because of her demeanor and character in her testimony…

Actually, I would believe or disbelieve a person based on evidence. Given that there is quite literally no evidence whatever that the incident ever happened, there is absolutely no logical reason to believe her.

You speak only of physical evidence. But Dr. Ford’s testimony is a kind of evidence too - something that is also taken into account in criminal trials too, even though this was not a criminal trial.

Thank you for admitting that. There have been plenty of people on this forum who are saying they have already been conclusively disproved.

It is not so much that it is virtually impossible to conclusively disprove such an allegation, the US system of justice used to demand that such allegations be proved, not that they be disproved. Justice has been turned upside down. Everyone recognizes the injustice done to blacks a century ago when juries routinely believed their white accusers simply because they were white. There is no difference today in calling for a woman to be believed simply because she is a woman.

That is the risk we take to live in a world where a woman does not have to produce a sperm sample from her vagina and a notarized video of the attack before her accusations are taken seriously.

I guess “the risk we take” is simply being male, and by being “taken seriously” you mean a woman’s charge against a man, regardless of evidence, should be believed, period. Unless that woman is Juanita Broaddrick or course. The real risk we take is ever letting people with this mindset gain sufficient control to implement these travesties.

You did not weigh in on whether you think we should go back to requiring a sperm sample and a notarized video of the attack. Do you think Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and all the others that have been charged should never have been charged? It sounds like you are challenging a lot more than Dr. Ford’s accusations. I just want to know how far you are willing to take it.

 

[Ender]

You speak only of physical evidence. But Dr. Ford’s testimony is a kind of evidence too - something that is also taken into account in criminal trials too, even though this was not a criminal trial.

Ford alleged it. Kavanaugh denied it. 1 to 1.
Judge denied seeing it. 2 to 1
Smyth denied seeing it. 3 to 1
Keyser denied seeing it. 4 to 1
Conclusion? Believe Ford.

You did not weigh in on whether you think we should go back to requiring a sperm sample and a notarized video of the attack. Do you think Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and all the others that have been charged should never have been charged? It sounds like you are challenging a lot more than Dr. Ford’s accusations. I just want to know how far you are willing to take it.

Is it really all that controversial to insist there ought to be corroborating evidence that an allegation is true before using it to ruin someone’s life? Is this really too high a bar? Are we now unwilling to require even that minimum standard?

 

[dvdjs]

You don’t get to redefine a word just to the definition you like, so you can feel indignant.

Yes, precisely. You don’t.

 

[JonNC]

And I already agreed that this specific claim was “too far” (i.e. false) but a very similar claim is true. That is the fact that Dr. Ford, through her lawyers, has asked for an FBI investigation.

But she won’t file criminal charges. Does that mean being accused of being a sexual assaulter is okay for the lower court but not the SCOTUS?

 

[dvdjs]

Does that mean being accused of being a sexual assaulter is okay for the lower court but not the SCOTUS?

Impeachment would require more evidence and a high standard of guilt.
But appointment is not an entitlement. In the past it has required a consensus on the quality and character of the candidate. Now just 51 votes and shove through someone on your team.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Does that mean being accused of being a sexual assaulter is okay for the lower court but not the SCOTUS?

Impeachment would require more evidence and a high standard of guilt.
But appointment is not an entitlement. In the past it has required a consensus on the quality and character of the candidate. Now just 51 votes and shove through someone on your team.

That doesn’t respond to my post. Is it okay for an “attempted rapist” to quote Brian Fallon, okay for the lower court?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And I already agreed that this specific claim was “too far” (i.e. false) but a very similar claim is true. That is the fact that Dr. Ford, through her lawyers, has asked for an FBI investigation.

But she won’t file criminal charges. Does that mean being accused of being a sexual assaulter is okay for the lower court but not the SCOTUS?

It is not up to Dr. Ford to “file charges.” That is something a district attorney does. She might request that charges be filed. Maybe she already has. I don’t know. But I suspect not. She is not interested in seeing Kavanaugh in jail. She just doesn’t want someone like him to be on the Supreme Court. Also, I suspect that she knows that it is much harder to prove guilt in a criminal trial than it is to cast doubt on an appointment in a job interview. I doubt she was perfectly OK with Kavanaugh being on the appeals court too, but for her own reasons decided not to go public at that time.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You speak only of physical evidence. But Dr. Ford’s testimony is a kind of evidence too - something that is also taken into account in criminal trials too, even though this was not a criminal trial.

Ford alleged it. Kavanaugh denied it. 1 to 1.
Judge denied seeing it. 2 to 1
Smyth denied seeing it. 3 to 1
Keyser denied seeing it. 4 to 1
Conclusion? Believe Ford.

Not exactly. If you are counting positive assertions that deny the opposite position, it is 1-1 (Ford and Kavanaugh). All the rest are not positive denials of Ford’s story. They are statements of not recalling the facts she claimed. So it is still 1-1. As for which one to believe when it is 1-1, you can look at the demeanor, the vested interest, the consistency with known facts, and decide for yourself. That is what the Senate should do and that is what the American people should do.

You did not weigh in on whether you think we should go back to requiring a sperm sample and a notarized video of the attack. Do you think Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and all the others that have been charged should never have been charged? It sounds like you are challenging a lot more than Dr. Ford’s accusations. I just want to know how far you are willing to take it.

Is it really all that controversial to insist there ought to be corroborating evidence that an allegation is true before using it to ruin someone’s life? Is this really too high a bar? Are we now unwilling to require even that minimum standard?

So, you still won’t be specific as to how strict the evidence standard should be for sexual assault. Come on now, address the Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein cases and tell me if they met what you think is a high enough bar of evidence.

 

[JonNC]

It is not up to Dr. Ford to “file charges.” That is something a district attorney does. She might request that charges be filed. Maybe she already has. I don’t know. But I suspect not. She is not interested in seeing Kavanaugh in jail. She just doesn’t want someone like him to be on the Supreme Court.

You’re parsing words. She hasn’t filed a complaint. She doesn’t want to see the man who sexually assaulted her go to prison.
Okay. She also doesn’t want him to be able to face his accusers in court. That way, the accusation can linger with resolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is not up to Dr. Ford to “file charges.” That is something a district attorney does. She might request that charges be filed. Maybe she already has. I don’t know. But I suspect not. She is not interested in seeing Kavanaugh in jail. She just doesn’t want someone like him to be on the Supreme Court.

You’re parsing words. She hasn’t filed a complaint. She doesn’t want to see the man who sexually assaulted her go to prison.
Okay. She also doesn’t want him to be able to face his accusers in court. That way, the accusation can linger with resolution.

Well, accusations without the force of law behind them are just a PR problem. If Kavanaugh thinks he has a case for slander, he can file civil charges. While you are busy wondering why Ford did not file a complaint against Kavanaugh, I am wondering why Kavanaugh did not file slander charges against Ford.

 

[JonNC]

Well, accusations without the force of law behind them are just a PR problem.

A PR problem? Yeah, destroying the reputation of a man who has a spotless record, and clearance at the highest level of government with no evidence, no witnesses, no known location or date, is simply bad PR.
You have got to be kidding.

If Kavanaugh thinks he has a case for slander, he can file civil charges. While you are busy wondering why Ford did not file a complaint against Kavanaugh, I am wondering why Kavanaugh did not file slander charges against Ford.

Actually, I agree, but in many ways, the real villains are the Democrats on that committee: the admitted groper from NewJersey, the overt sexist bigot from Hawaii to name two. And they can’t be sued.