Sure. First step for you: have someone credibly accuse me of rape. Second step for you: get me nominated to the Supreme court. Third step is on me, but I’ll wait for you to complete steps 1 and 2.
I assumed you were reading the thread.
Uh, ok. But your position was that I had invented an arbitrary line. That’s wrong. I was explaining the line as it exists in the law. If you think the law is wrong to draw that line, more power to you. But your position would be more persuasive if you actually addressed the reasons the line is drawn in that way.
You misunderstand the role that the stakes play in distinguishing judicial proceedings from other contexts when negligently accusing people of immoral or criminal behavior. The point isn’t that getting it right is very important. The point is that we think sending people to jail wrongly is worse than setting them free wrongly, and so we give them every leeway and lots of advantages. There is no similar analogy to the context of appointing a Supreme Court justice. If anything, we should be careful about who we put on the court and disqualify them relatively easily.
Then Ms. Ford could spend fifteen minutes setting up the list of conditions, and the rest of last week getting her story together. Or the previous week, or the week before that, or before that.
Regards,
Shodan
all those kids raped and molested by priests 30 or more years ago, nobody seems to disbelieve them. I wonder why that is different than this issue with Brett?
To put it another way, if your goal is just to get to the truth as reliably as possible, then the standard you use is a preponderance of evidence. And you don’t allow unreasonable speculation into that equation.
If your goal is to ensure that we have enormous confidence in a given outcome before reaching it (imprisoning someone), then you use a different standard like beyond a reasonable doubt and you allow even quite dodgy evidence to be considered.
Deciding whether a Supreme Court nominee is qualified is probably a “get the truth” scenario. If it isn’t, then if anything the outcome you want to weight more heavily is *not *putting them on the court, since there are plenty of people who are qualified and this is a discretionary privilege bestowed on them and not a punishment.
I’ve already heard presumption of guilt (which is completely f’ed-up BTW) here and many other places. If you can name a single thing, other than a complete retraction of Ford’s accusation, that would convince the mob of Kavenaugh’s innocence (i.e. “put the matter to bed”), I might consider what your saying to be less than disingenuous.
So if she had some foresight, she should have foreseen the rest of it?
Sorry, not convinced.
You say she did this back in July? Again, linky please.
So as far as we know, her key contribution - the claim that this was being talked about at school - still stands.
Got it.
If we get FBI investigations into both the rape accusation and Doppelgangergate, and persons the FBI investigation identifies as relevant witnesses are called to testify by the SJC, and after that we libruls still want more - then I’ll concede your point.
But saying, “we’re not going to investigate this thing that blatantly needs investigating, because y’all will only want more” is a whole pasture full of bullshit.
I was, but I understood that this is not a criminal prosecution, and nothing I’ve said is inconsistent with that.
Telling someone “How many times do people have to tell you …” implies that people have told something multiple times to the person being addressed, which he consistently fails to grasp. This is what you were incorrectly implying here.
No big deal, and it’s not like I’m unfamiliar with your posting style. But worth a comment.
We’re not discussing what the law is but whether it’s moral or not. From that perspective, whether the law currently treats it differently is an arbitrary line.
Sending people to jail wrongly is one type of high stakes. Scuttling SC nominations is another type of high stakes. No doubt there are yet other forms of high stakes which from a moral perspective would be comparable or worse than sending people to jail but which the law doesn’t single out because they’re rare enough that they don’t warrant explicit exceptions. (E.g. suppose you could avoid a war by speculating about the guilt of so-and-so.)
[I should also add that beyond even legal ethics, people routinely speculate about the guilt of various supposed suspects to assorted crimes, e.g. that Burke Ramsey killed his sister etc. etc. etc. It’s pretty widely accepted as an acceptable thing to do. But my point earlier was about legal ethics, and I stand by that as well.]
Allowing such tenuous accusations to influence SC nominations is bad for society as a whole.
As I said at the outset of this discussion, I think even if the allegations are completely true he should be confirmed anyway. But I also think there’s a Heckler’s Veto aspect as well.
…said no Republican ever when much wilder accusations were made against a Democrat.
only 31 percent of Americans want him confirmed. 40 percent do not. The rest I assume are undecided or have no opinion. 45% say he will be confirmed.
Poll: Brett Kavanaugh faces strong opposition amid Ford assault claim
Yeah, not sure that would lead you to the outcome you are hoping for. Kavanaugh was a Federal Judge for over a decade…won’t be near as easy as you think.
Accuser* always *goes first.
No. Witnesses are not permitted to hear each other testify until they themselves have finished giving evidence.
This is where I point out that my Idiot In Chief who “cannot imagine” a privileged teenage boy forcing himself on a girl at a party, argued for years that a 8 month pregnant woman from Hawaii flew to Kenya to have her baby, then flew back to retroactively pretend that he was born in Hawaii, an act that would have absolutely no impact on the boy’s life except if he were to become President, literally the only job in the entire country where one’s exact place of birth could prevent you from getting it.
That idiotic fact deficient claim can be repeated ad-nauseum by people around the country, and we’re just now acting like proof is important?
The Senate is not going to give in to all Ford’s conditions. Ford won’t testify, unless some of the conditions are met to make this somewhat fair. How many lawyers does Ford have working for her to negotiate for her; to prepare her?
Ford knows her story, no doubt. Preparing is more than getting her story together. It’s about how to testify effectively. For example, take a random Great Debate thread on this site. You personally would be very effective in any thread debate because you understand and could use a strawman argument, this fallacy, that fallacy - you could argue effectively because you have experience even if you don’t really know to much about the actual underlying premise. Someone else, a novice, who didn’t know about those things, would lose to you and take the bait, even if they better understood the underlying premise.
Ford is a novice and she will get railroaded without some proper help. The questions will not be asked in a way that she can freely answer them, even if she answers them truthfully. It needs to be truthful (obviously), but calculated and thoughtful. She will need to anticipate lines of questioning that are meant to discredit her/leave doubt, and do it in real-time.
She also needs to be effective with the truth and that’s not always a natural thing to be able to do. Here’s one example of truthful testimony, both are the truth, but one is only truthful, one is truthful and effective. (1) “He assaulted me and then I went home.” (2) “He assaulted me and then I rode my bicycle home.” The first one she is Professor/Dr. Ford (old). The second one she is just a fifteen year old girl (a kid).
Sure, the FBI could investigate and find that there are irreconcilable contradictions in Ford’s story. Or there could be some type of non-testimonial evidence of her manufacturing the story, like some emails or something. Or, through interviewing other people at the school, the date of the alleged assault could be refined, only to find that Kavenaugh was at that time on a spoiled high school fratboy trip to Tijuana to go see a donkey show. There’s tons and tons of ways that an investigation could move this discussion beyond “I believe the white Republican man – they are always assumed to be better than their accusers!” or “Nobody should ever trust such an obviously spoiled prick!”
But if you’re going to say that people who tend to believe a woman giving a credible case of sexual assault constitute a “mob,” then I think you’ve made your bias clear.
:dubious:
You do realise that witness coaching is seven ways unethical according to ABA?
Since that’s what you are proposing there
You really think (in this hypothetical) that lying about attempted rape shouldn’t be disqualifying for the SCOTUS?
The “mob” refers to people that have already made up their mind that Kavenaugh is guilty. I find there is a considerable overlap between those people, and people that did not want Kavenaugh on the supreme court already. I am not saying Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty. I am not saying Ford is lying or telling the truth. I am not biased on this issue, other than I think Ford needs to come up with something more compelling than an unspecified date/time/location from the early 1980s. She has the opportunity to present that next week and I look forward to her testimony.
Yeah, I agree. I think that much of this claim is…well, I won’t say bullshit, but as I said earlier, it’s pretty thin IMHO. However, the response to the claims, especially if indeed he’s part of the group trying to demonstrate doubt by deflecting to someone else demonstrates, to me anyway (and FWIW, noting I don’t want this guy to be confirmed anyway) that he’s unsuited and a new candidate should be put forth.
Are you under the impression that Kavenaugh did not receive coaching for his confirmation hearing? Buddy, I hate you break this to you… but virtually every official who testifies before Congress, whether for a nomination hearing or an oversight hearing, receives some kind of coaching.