• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

theprestige said:
Indeed, Ford's whole strategy seems to have been to gain the benefits of victimhood, without ever having to actually prove her accusations against her alleged victimizer.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean benefits like death threats? Interesting.
 
theprestige said:
Benefits like destroying someone's reputation and career.

Without ever actually having to prove anything.

And of course Kavanaugh got threats too. Will you hold Ford responsible for that?
Click to expand...

No, I will not. Will you? Seeing as how you seem to have decided Ford was lying with no evidence to support that.

Added: Funny how you claim Ford gains benefits by lying but you seem blissfully unaware that so does Kavanaugh, too.
 
Last edited:
Kavanaugh's lies get him a Justice seat, that's no mean prize. What does she get, a few million at best in a book deal to offset the loss of her private life and safety?
 
The Big Dog said:
Guess you are not getting the whole everyone who she identified as witnesses were not supporting anything she said. Including PJ.
Click to expand...

Guess you are not getting the whole not supporting is not the same as denying
The Big Dog said:
Expert after expert will also tell you it is perfectly normal when the accuser has been mistaken.
Click to expand...

Not when they personally know their attacker. Misidentification is extremely rare when the attacker(s) is/are personally known to the victim.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Kavanaugh's lies get him a Justice seat, that's no mean prize. What does she get, a few million at best in a book deal to offset the loss of her private life and safety?
Click to expand...


THIS!

Dr Ford is a smart, intelligent and accomplished university professor. She didn't need to come forward; she had everything to lose and nothing to gain from doing so.

Only one person testifying at the hearing had any motivation or reason to lie... and he did so.... repeatedly.
 
smartcooky said:
Guess you are not getting the whole not supporting is not the same as denying


Not when they personally know their attacker. Misidentification is extremely rare when the attacker(s) is/are personally known to the victim.
Click to expand...

Well, who knows at this point because the Ford team twisted Leland’s arm to change her story after the other three denied it.

Kavanaugh a big story down in Australia then?
 
LSSBB said:
Well, in addition to his lack of partiality and judgelyness, there's his problematic take on the 4th amendment...
Click to expand...
Scalia would definitely not approve. (For those who don't know, Scalia had a reputation as an arch-conservative, but on fourth amendment issues he frequently sided against law enforcement, in favor of privacy rights.)

I can't say I know enough about any of the cases cited to have a real opinion, but something tells me he isn't going to be known as a civil libertarian. I read a little bit about the questions he asked today during his first set of arguments, and I wasn't relieved to see him on the court, either, but we'll have to see a bit of his actual rulings, and dissents if any, this year to be sure.
 
Ford's testimony cannot be trusted, because her memory is not perfect.
Kavanaugh's testimony must be trusted, because he claims his memory is perfect.
Too bad we k from numerous witnesses that Kavanaugh used to get massively drunk all the time.

So why is her testimony less reliable than his?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump apologises to Kavanaugh over 'unfair' treatment

As the White House ceremony got under way on Monday, Mr Trump said: "On behalf of our nation, I want to apologise to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure."

And he decried a "campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception", adding that "under historic scrutiny", he had been "proven innocent".
Click to expand...

You don't speak for me, Sunkist Kaiser.
 
ahhell said:
I find that last bit funny considering how little the GOP congress is actually getting done these days. What has the GOP actually accomplished in the last two years? The passed a tax bill and...…?
Click to expand...

Imprisoned lots of brown children. That's something that their base loves.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Ford's testimony cannot be trusted, because her memory is not perfect.
Kavanaugh's testimony must be trusted, because he claims his memory is perfect.
Too bad we k from numerous witnesses that Kavanaugh used to get massively drunk all the time.

So why is her testimony less reliable than his?
Click to expand...

While I am sure that there are plenty of right wingers who would give some sort of answer to your final question, it really isn't the right question.

It's not the case that his testimony is "more reliable" than hers. The issue is that there is insufficient data available to judge whether or not it happened. Her story, that she was assaulted by two young men at a drinking party, is not at all unusual, so there's no inherent reason to reject it as implausible. Her memory of events is spotty, but that isn't unusual after 35 years, so there's no reason to dismiss the story out of hand on that account.

Then we get into some more problematic aspects. She remembers two people who were there, other than the perpetrators, but those two people can't remember anything like that party, which gets problematic. We don't know everything they told the FBI, but we know that no one who saw their full testimony said their testimony confirmed Ford's account, while several people said it upheld Kavanaugh's. The same is true of the testimony of "Timmy" and "Squi". That doesn't prove anything, but it sure does seem like a lot of people's memories have some holes in them.


Finally, it still seems odd to me that she remembers where she was before the party, and she remembers where she went after the party, but she doesn't remember anything about how she got to and from the party. Again, that doesn't prove anything, but it's just odd.


Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is consistent, but it's easy to be consistent when you simply deny everything. He could be lying.


So, we have a case where we simply cannot decide whose account is closer to the truth based on the evidence we have. It's not that her story is less credible than his. It's just that neither one offers proof, one way or another. In such a case, I believe we must find in favor of the accused.


Some people have objected that that standard only applies in court, but I believe that is exactly backwards. It is applied in court because that is the standard by which all accusations should be judged. The accuser in any situation ought to be required to provide evidence in order to be believed. Even on these forums we are constantly seeing posters who demand that the person who puts forward a claim should put forward evidence supporting the claim. We are so familiar with the idea that it is frequently shortened to a single word, "Evidence?" An accusation is a claim, and should require evidence to be believed. In this case, the evidence is incredibly thin, and that is if you accept a generous interpretation of the reasons for missing evidence and memories.
 
Segnosaur said:
Why exactly should anyone care what this woman has to say?

She's an English professor... i.e. she's not a legal professor, nor does she seem to have any background in psychology, politics or any other area of relevant expertise. As such, her "opinions" offer no more value to the discussion than any layperson.

I listened to part of her video. She just seemed to be re-hashing the same bunk that the rape apologists in the republican party have been offering. And bunk is bunk, even if you happen to find someone who happens to have different genitals than the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

Maybe because she makes quite a few salient points, none that you seem to have refuted. Care to try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom