New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[ahhell]

Imprisoned lots of brown children. That's something that their base loves.

That was through executive action, the congress wasn't able to get that done. So, it could have happened even with a Dem congress. I think my point about the GOP being generally incompetent at achieving goals still stands.

 

[Random]

Presumption of innocence. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

This idea really only applies to criminal court verdicts. It doesn't even really apply to the trial proceedings themselves. Otherwise, we would have indignant defendants complaining about having been arrested and taken to a courthouse against their will.

"I have a legal presumption of innocence! Why did the police stop me from stabbing my wife to death? Why have I been placed in shackles? Why are you treating me like a criminal? I am clearly innocent! I am leaving this courtroom right now! I have to go buy a new knife!"

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you saying eyewitness testimony under oath =/= evidence?

It's evidence of a sort, but then so is his testimony. If everyone accepts the claim, then there is no need for other evidence, but when the claim is disputed, it is reasonable to ask for evidence beyond the claim itself.

 

[Meadmaker]

Be more open minded. People lie for all sorts of reasons, and if you include mistakes and delusions, there are even more possible explanations for false testimony.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Be more open minded. People lie for all sorts of reasons, and if you include mistakes and delusions, there are even more possible explanations for false testimony.

While I do not agree with you that it applies in this case, I do agree in the broad sense that it is important to remember that often time the first person a person lies to is themselves.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Be more open minded. People lie for all sorts of reasons. If you include mistakes and delusions there are even more possible explanations for false testimony.

 

[luchog]

That's... nothing short of monstrous.

Exactly. But that's the world we live in. And attempts in many states to ban the practice for minors only have been quashed by Republicans.

 

[theprestige]

Are you saying eyewitness testimony under oath =/= evidence?

The plaintiff is the plaintiff. The eyewitnesses are other people whose testimony corroborates the plaintiff's claim.

 

[ahhell]

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?

I don't think she's lying but this understates the possible motives, even at that, a few million is significant incentive. Other incentives, there are a lot of people who think basic human rights are at stake, lying under oath and loss of privacy is a small price to pay for preventing back alley abortions.

On other notes the whole presumed innocent/job interview thing.

It might be illustrative to reduce the stakes a bit. I'm applying for a job and in the process someone accuses me of a crime where the only evidence is that person's word. Is it really reasonable for my prospective employer to assume the accusation is true? Even if true, to old it against me when it was 30 years prior and their aren't any accusations for my bad behavior over the last 25 years?

Also, I don't think either is lying about the events as they remember or do not remember them. Their stories are totally consistent with something happening similar to her story but not an attempted rape. Memories of trauma have been demonstrated to get worse over time and memories of not trauma fade. So, it could well have been, he tried to have sex with her, she didn't want to and freaked out. He backed off and forgot about it. She was triggered by it and it got exaggerated in her mind over the years. Even if it happened exactly as she said, that could well be what happened. Not attempted rape but drunken sexual aggression where he backed down when he figured out she wasn't going for it.

None of that matters, I don't like his views on the 4th amendment but I don't need to claim he's a rapist or attempted rapist with little to no evidence to not like the guy.

 

[lobosrul5]

I don't think she's lying but this understates the possible motives, even at that, a few million is significant incentive. Other incentives, there are a lot of people who think basic human rights are at stake, lying under oath and loss of privacy is a small price to pay for preventing back alley abortions.

On other notes the whole presumed innocent/job interview thing.

It might be illustrative to reduce the stakes a bit. I'm applying for a job and in the process someone accuses me of a crime where the only evidence is that person's word. Is it really reasonable for my prospective employer to assume the accusation is true? Even if true, to old it against me when it was 30 years prior and their aren't any accusations for my bad behavior over the last 25 years?

Also, I don't think either is lying about the events as they remember or do not remember them. Their stories are totally consistent with something happening similar to her story but not an attempted rape. Memories of trauma have been demonstrated to get worse over time and memories of not trauma fade. So, it could well have been, he tried to have sex with her, she didn't want to and freaked out. He backed off and forgot about it. She was triggered by it and it got exaggerated in her mind over the years. Even if it happened exactly as she said, that could well be what happened. Not attempted rape but drunken sexual aggression where he backed down when he figured out she wasn't going for it.

None of that matters, I don't like his views on the 4th amendment but I don't need to claim he's a rapist or attempted rapist with little to no evidence to not like the guy.

The thing is, there is no federal law from them doing exactly that. And the NFL has suspended players based on nothing more than allegations of abuse.

 

[crescent]

Alright then, Kavanaugh passed the job interview and was hired -- public opinion prevailed.

Are you high?

Nowhere near public opinion prevailed.

And the conservatives get to live with it. Pyrrhic victory, in all likeliness. The President who had three million fewer votes than his competitor got a candidate through the Senate by relying on Senators from the states with the smallest populations, to get a candidate in who was opposed by a majority of the population. That will be remembered, and held against Kavanaugh for the rest of his life - he'll be the least respected SC justice in a century or more.

But hey, if in your world, that counts as "Public Opinion", you just go with that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

xx

 

[Segnosaur]

Are you saying eyewitness testimony under oath =/= evidence?

It's evidence of a sort, but then so is his testimony. If everyone accepts the claim, then there is no need for other evidence, but when the claim is disputed, it is reasonable to ask for evidence beyond the claim itself.

Yes it's reasonable to seek out more evidence.

But the republicans did not. The committee refused to call additional witnesses to back up either side, and the FBI investigation was hampered at the start (with limits on who could be interviewed) and even now there are multiple people who wanted to talk to the FBI but were turned away.

And it should be noted that Ford wanted the FBI to investigate. No such call for an investigation came from Kavanaugh. When one side calls for a full investigation and the other side (Kavanaugh and the republicans) do everything they can to prevent such an investigation, that in itself should be considered evidence.

 

[Bob001]

Yes it's reasonable to seek out more evidence.

But the republicans did not. The committee refused to call additional witnesses to back up either side, and the FBI investigation was hampered at the start (with limits on who could be interviewed) and even now there are multiple people who wanted to talk to the FBI but were turned away.

And it should be noted that Ford wanted the FBI to investigate. No such call for an investigation came from Kavanaugh. When one side calls for a full investigation and the other side (Kavanaugh and the republicans) do everything they can to prevent such an investigation, that in itself should be considered evidence.

Yes.

WASHINGTON — An exasperated President Trump picked up the phone to call the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, last Sunday. Tell the F.B.I. they can investigate anything, he told Mr. McGahn, because we need the critics to stop.

Not so fast, Mr. McGahn said.

Mr. McGahn, according to people familiar with the conversation, told the president that even though the White House was facing a storm of condemnation for limiting the F.B.I. background check into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/trump-kavanaugh-fbi.html

And that's from the White House lawyer.

 

[Hellbound]

It might be illustrative to reduce the stakes a bit. I'm applying for a job and in the process someone accuses me of a crime where the only evidence is that person's word. Is it really reasonable for my prospective employer to assume the accusation is true? Even if true, to old it against me when it was 30 years prior and their aren't any accusations for my bad behavior over the last 25 years?

I agree so far. But, if it does come up, and when I ask you about it at your interview you respond with a long conspiracy theory about how it's all a plot to discredit you, and you give evasive and over-explanatory answers, you better believe I'm having second thoughts. If there's someone else qualified, I don't want or need your baggage.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes it's reasonable to seek out more evidence.

But the republicans did not. The committee refused to call additional witnesses to back up either side, and the FBI investigation was hampered at the start (with limits on who could be interviewed) and even now there are multiple people who wanted to talk to the FBI but were turned away.

They had sworn testimony from multiple other sources. Other than the TV spectacle it would provide, what advantage do you honestly think having them testify in person would provide?

And the Republicans asked for Ford's full therapist notes, which she refused. So you can't honestly claim one side was for full disclosure and one side was trying to cover everything up.

And it should be noted that Ford wanted the FBI to investigate.

Given that there's basically nothing for them to investigate (no date, no location, no witnesses), I'm not sure why you think this means anything.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It is only a salient point to people who ignore his demeanor from years on the bench and the several days of testimony that proceeded it.

Or today's oral argument.

or how a nine member bench actually functions in the real world.

I don't think any of that excuses the fact that he blamed the Clinton's for his drinking habits as a teen.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I agree so far. But, if it does come up, and when I ask you about it at your interview you respond with a long conspiracy theory about how it's all a plot to discredit you, and you give evasive and over-explanatory answers, you better believe I'm having second thoughts. If there's someone else qualified, I don't want or need your baggage.

And this an important distinction.

No I don't think Kavanaugh should be... arrested or convicted or go the sex offender registry list. The concept of a statue of limitations does exist for a legit reason.

Not going on the Supreme Court is not a punishment.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you including rape in the "and such?"

I have no idea. "Process Crime" seem to be used by the right to hand wave all sorts of crimes, so long as the criminal is either conservative or punished. I have no idea if they would apply it to rape or attempted rape or sexual assault, but I won't be surprised.

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree so far. But, if it does come up, and when I ask you about it at your interview you respond with a long conspiracy theory about how it's all a plot to discredit you, and you give evasive and over-explanatory answers, you better believe I'm having second thoughts. If there's someone else qualified, I don't want or need your baggage.

Leaving aside the issue of whether Ford was telling the truth, it absolutely is true that the Democrats (Feinstein in particular) were plotting to discredit him. There was absolutely no good-faith reason for Feinstein to have done what she did. It was a disservice to both Kavanaugh AND Ford. He had every right to be angry about that.