Supreme court nominees

[JimG]

Senator Flake was accosted on an elevator by a screaming woman who told him that she had been sexually assaulted and if he voted for confirmation he was showing disregard for her. That makes no sense. Many protestors were saying the same thing: if you vote for Kavanaugh you are hurting us! How does every case of sexual assault suddenly become the fault of Kavanaugh. Believe women; but don’t believe the scores of women who vouch for Kavanaugh. All sexual assault, whenever it happened, is now the fault of Kavanaugh and any senators who vote to confirm him. It’s become totally irrational.

In the future we are going to investigate the elementary and high school yearbooks of all candidates in order to dig up dirt. Except for anyone who is known to be favorable on Roe v Wade.

 

[dvdjs]

Not here, but those two women who accosted Flake said it. Hirono implied it. Lots in the media have been overt about it.

Then perhaps the post should be directed to the two women, not threaded into a conversation between two people who have never said such a things…

Senator Flake was accosted

I take your pivot to Flake and accosters as a retreat from the clear implication of your previous post to tar my thinking as Orwellian It wouldn’t hurt to be direct.

 

[JonNC]

Then perhaps the post should be directed to the two women, not threaded into a conversation between two people who have never said such a things…

I’m just making it clear. I didn’t state it. Also, I don’t think other poster was accusing anyone here.

I take your pivot to Flake and accosters as a retreat from the clear implication of your previous post to tar my thinking as Orwellian It wouldn’t hurt to be direct.

I’m the one who who said it sounds Orwellian. It does.

 

[JimG]

And the circus continues:

And the Circus Continues – The American Catholic

the-american-catholic.com

 

[dvdjs]

I’m the one who who said it sounds Orwellian. It does.

The other poster expressed a concurring opinion, and elaborated on reasins for the description.

Also, I don’t think other poster was accusing anyone here.

Given the concurrence with your post about me, it seems that the poster was.
The poster can always clarify.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

What makes an accusation credible?

Clear access to knowledge of the incident. No certain disqualification of the accuser. No clear exculpatory evidence.

1. Ford has no clear knowledge of the incident she herself describes. She has, or at least claims to have, no recollection of where she was, how she got there, or how she got home. The only things she claims to remember were some of the people who were there, who without exception deny that claim.
2. This seems like an impossible standard: what exactly would constitute a “certain disqualification”? Describe a situation where person A is automatically disqualified from being taken seriously when leveling a charge of attempted rape against person B.

A “credible accusation” in this context is nothing more than “one I want to believe.”

1. The word “clear” pretty much eviscerates this one of any meaning. It is clear to me, given the statements of every person named by Ford that they never witnessed such an incident, that the charge is baseless, but since “clear” here means nothing more than “It still doesn’t satisfy me”, once again we have an impossibly high bar.

 

[Ender]

Why do you continue to maintain that unsubstantiated allegations are destroying Kavanaugh’s livelihood? You know he still has a job for life, regardless of the vote for confirmation. You know Clarence Thomas seems to be doing well. Even Bill Clinton seems to be happy and well-provided, despite the allegations against him.

Ah, you cavil over the loss of livelihood comment and ignore the obvious and indefensible attack on his reputation as if all that matters is money.

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is why dueling used to be legal. People had to choose their words carefully or be willing to back them up.

 

[Ender]

One difference is self-interest. Ford has no self-interest reason for coming forward with her allegations. Kavanaugh has a huge self-interest reason for denying them. Now, this difference is not absolutely determinative, but it is worth taking into account when evaluating them.

Self interest…that seems to happen pretty much every time someone is charged with misbehavior: he defends himself. Apparently in the current environment even defending yourself is now grounds for suspicion.

As dvdjs said, “this is changing.” Your observation above is evidence of this. The summarial dismissal is not being done by the Senate. But it is being done by some posters in this thread.

Again, words are being given a unique definition. In this case any argument pointing to the obvious weaknesses in Ford’s claim constitutes “summary dismissal”. Like charges of “cherry picking” it simply means there is no effective response to the objections so let’s just ignore them.

 

[dvdjs]

Ford has no clear knowledge …

There is a difference, not the least bit subtle, between access to knowledge and knowledge. Whatever the gaps in her memory, she was there.

This seems like an impossible standard: what exactly would constitute a “certain disqualification”?

She has transcripts that show that she was actually enrolled elsewhere. She did no live in the area on or about the time in question, etc. I probably should have said disqualification of the accuser’s story.

It is clear to me, given the statements of every person named by Ford that they never witnessed such an incident, that the charge is baseless,

You take that as clear. Two problems, the young men involved have every reason to deny. theri denial is not clear exculpatory evidence. Moreover, her friend - even as she has no recall of the event of even meeting Kavanaugh still believes Ford - she does not see her remarks are exculpatory, let alone clearly exculpatory. How about this: Kavanaugh was on a supervised trip out of the country during the relevant period of time.

 

[Ender]

Why do you continue to put forth a clearly false claim? They even said during the hearing, “This is not a trial.” Nothing more than a seat on the SC is at stake.

Everyone reading this thread ought to ponder this thought. Why do trials have the requirements they do, and what is the significance of this “not being a trial”? A trial is aimed at finding the truth so a just decision can be reached; it is based on what is fair to both sides.

The suggestion here, because this is “not a trial”, is that standards of fairness and justice do not apply. In a trial you cannot destroy a person by innuendo and unsubstantiated charges…but this is “not a trial”. The “not a trial” objection is justification for the kind of behavior that is profoundly unjust.

 

[Ender]

There is a difference, not the least bit subtle, between access to knowledge and knowledge. Whatever the gaps in her memory, she was there.

She wasn’t “there” because there is no "there’. She claims to have no knowledge of where “there” is.

How about this: Kavanaugh was on a supervised trip out of the country during the relevant period of time.

There is also no “relevant period of time”. She has no idea when this happened. In fact Kavanaugh does have proof that he was not in town much of that summer, but since Ford cannot even identify the month the alleged attack took place he cannot “prove” he was gone at the time.

There is nothing here: no time, no place, no corroborating witness, no verifiable detail. This is the ultimate “she said, he said” accusation. Justice is meaningless if such an empty charge is legitimated.

 

[dvdjs]

She wasn’t “there” because there is no "there’.

You mean you need to remember the address or such in order to have been at an event?

There is also no “relevant period of time”.

Again you must have the date? Not summer of 1982?

 

[Ender]

You mean you need to remember the address or such in order to have been at an event?

The suggestion that the only alternative to no information is ludicrously precise information demonstrates the weakness of this position. Most of us probably can’t remember even the names of the streets our friends lived on 30 years ago, but it’s unlikely we can’t remember if we were at Pete’s house, or over at Dick’s, or maybe and Diane’s. Even this, however, appears to be too much for Ford to recall.

Again you must have the date? Not summer of 1982?

Once again the evasion is to suggest the only alternative to remembering nothing is to remember everything. How can she be sure it was the summer of '82? More to the point, how can anyone be confident of this given that she remembers virtually nothing about the incident, and every detail she has supplied that is verifiable has in fact been denied?

There is a long way between remembering nothing and remembering everything, but given that what little she has “remembered” appears false it is understandable that she would remember so little.

 

[dvdjs]

The suggestion that the only alternative to no information is ludicrously precise information demonstrates the weakness of this position

I agree, that is why I pointed out that her knowledge of her surroundings is not realy different fro what you might expect. Aspects that are significant to the event - significance fixes memory - are remembered like the stairs, the rooms, not the GPS coordinates.

Once again the evasion is to suggest the only alternative to remembering nothing is to remember everything.

On the contrary it is abundanlty clear that it is not the case that she remembers nothing. Again: not remembering everything - in particular everything that you think she should - is different from her remembering nothing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Why do you continue to put forth a clearly false claim? They even said during the hearing, “This is not a trial.” Nothing more than a seat on the SC is at stake.

Everyone reading this thread ought to ponder this thought. Why do trials have the requirements they do, and what is the significance of this “not being a trial”? A trial is aimed at finding the truth so a just decision can be reached; it is based on what is fair to both sides.

What makes you think the presumption of innocence has not been afforded to Judge Kavanaugh? He is not charged with a crime. He is being interviewed for a job. And that has not even been decided yet.

 

[Victoria33]

One difference is self-interest. Ford has no self-interest reason for coming forward with her allegations. Kavanaugh has a huge self-interest reason for denying them

She’s an abortion profiteer, a Democrat, has participated in anti-Trump marches. And I can go on. It sounds like you are the one denying reality.

This has been said before so we are repeating information you refuse to acknowlege to use again in debate. She is very motivated, former classmate, maybe be jealous, never told anyone this until Kavanaugh became a candidate for SCOTUS potentially in 2012.

@LeafByNiggle

 

[Ender]

On the contrary it is abundanlty clear that it is not the case that she remembers nothing.

What is abundantly clear is that every detail she “remembers” that can be refuted has in fact been refuted. It is only the “facts” she cannot remember that, unsurprisingly, cannot also be disputed.

 

[Ender]

What makes you think the presumption of innocence has not been afforded to Judge Kavanaugh?

Gosh, I dunno. This sure is puzzling.

The View: ‘Guilty’ Kavanaugh Will Have to Be 'Impeached' If Confirmed

The women of The View on Monday offered their latest conviction of Brett Kavanaugh, declaring him “guilty” and suggesting that impeachment is next, should the judge be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Last week, co-host Joy Behar proclaimed Kavanaugh “probably guilty.” On Monday, she’s dropped...

www.newsbusters.org

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/symone-sanders-kavanaugh-guilty/

Hirono fundraises off Kavanaugh, ‘he knows he is guilty’

The senator leading the fight against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is fundraising off her notoriety, and in her bid for up to $1,500 claimed that

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The only one of these that has any importance is Hirono, and I could not find any full quote of her statement including context that would verify that she had declared him guilty.