Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

Emphasis added. Use any word you’d like, and Kavanaugh should know what the <insert your word of choice here> against him is. Much has been made of Ford’s demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I’d say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact <insert your word of choice here> which I an supposed to be addressing.

I would hope that the first question Ford is asked is when she has or is planning to report this allegation to the police, so an investigation can start. That’s the biggest thing missing at the moment, and the thing that makes it look like a political thing.

The FBI have already peformed multiple background checks on him, and they (presumably) have found nothing to suggest he’s a sexual predator. If that’s not the case, and they have found such evidence, it should be released. Otherwise, what are people expecting from another background check?

Once again, I cannot recommend enough,Sadakat Kadri’s The Trial.
It charts the history of most of the procedures used. Lets just say they aren’t placed there willy nilly, most of them have come through bitter experience.

One of the most common excuses for violations of fundamental rights is that the accused is too powerful and prominent to be handled by ordinary judicial proceedings, the other that “this is not a Criminal Court/just an investigation, inquiry”.

You would think the United States would not want to recreate the fucking Star Chamber or the Inquisition in the 21st century.

I am using the actual definition of corroboration. You, a lawyer, are not.

Some details in her story have been corroborated. Details of substance. That’s a fact.

In other news… you have your own thread.

You need to explain the reason for the timing for us to begin to discuss whether it’s not arbitrary.

This is also the first I heard of anything of the sort. Didn’t Ms. Ford’s best friend and college roommate tell (IIRC The New York Times) that no mention was ever made, and her roommate didn’t observe anything. As a matter of fact, the roommate said Ms. Ford contacted her via Facebook shortly before deciding to make the allegation to check if she had ever mentioned it before. Which seems a little out of the ordinary - Ms. Ford says the attack put her into a tailspin, but doesn’t recall if she ever mentioned it to her best friend.

So that friend in particular doesn’t say anything resembling that she was changed, or mentioned it. The first time anyone seems to have heard anything from Ms. Ford was in 2012, where her therapist says Ms. Ford said she was attacked by four people, and doesn’t mention Kavanaugh or Judge. Now five years later, she says she remembers it was two people and who they were, and that the therapist’s contemporaneous notes don’t report what she said.

Regards,
Shodan

Do you mean that neither should be privy to each other’s testimony, or only that Kavanaugh should not be privy?

Is there a reason that it will be harder to get at the truth if Kavanaugh hears the testimony but not if Ford does?

Besides, Ford was offered the chance to testify in private, and turned it down.

Regards,
Shodan

So in other words, you’ve got nothing except for a Pit Thread. Fine. I’m not interested in those type of childish games. In fact, you are playing into my main argument that there is no reason or consideration when it comes to these types of allegations, simply personal attacks.

If you would like to respond to the substance of my response, I’ll be glad to engage.

Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia?

You skipped over the part where she wanted to both remain anonymous AND have her story kept confidential.

You’re saying she wanted her story to come out and destroy Kavanaugh while her identity remained secret.

CITE???

Next final deadline’s in 45 minutes. Wonder what’ll happen.

I hear it has to do with some sort of party that he may or may not have been present at.

Sure it does. But if a judge thinks that you are using the motion simply to delay it will not be granted. If you tell the judge that the cable guy is coming that day, it will not be granted. Continuances are granted for good cause, not because I petulantly demand it.

ETA: “Good cause” is flexible depending on the type of hearing. If it is just a status hearing, then maybe the cable guy coming is good enough for the judge. If it is a final jury trial scheduled for weeks, then you had better be dead and then your dead body had better have a good excuse for not appearing.

Still trying to figure out if Kavanaugh could be criminally charged if Ford decided to try. After a bit of searching that didn’t turn up much, I figured I’d page through The Baltimore Sun (figuratively speaking) and found this interesting article:

It’s completely relevant. Feinstein treated it with all the seriousness she deemed it was worth. There was a hearing specifically to vet Kavanaugh. It’s over and this isn’t new evidence that’s come to light. It was always there.

Not one shred of evidence. Which is why Feinstein didn’t bring it to the hearing in the first place. There is literally nothing to investigate.

There’s no evidence to investigate.

Attempted rape, first degree, was a misdemeanor? Certainly, things have improved, having gone from terrible to not very good.

I’ll cite myself, since that’s* not* what I said. I said, and I quote:

Now, I am going to try to deconstruct what I think your apparent misinterpretation is of what I said. When I am referring to “the national arena”, that is a continuation of the string of words “a prominent figure in the national arena”, being Kavenaugh. NOT “<a story> in the national arena.”

The accusation itself made it up to a United States Senator and apparently was meant to stay there. It stretches credibility that a high level politician would be expected to read this letter and just sit on it, but, uh, sure. And, I still think it’s awfully naive to think that she could make such an allegation against a friggin SCOTUS nominee during one of the most highly politicized time in recent history and remain anonymous. But, again, oops.

Any further questions?

Also:

I’m glad a Democrat said it. When I say it, I get called all kinds of nasty names, the truth of the assertion be damned.

I know nothing of MD law, but find it amazing that attempted rape was a misdemeanor in MD until 1996. In my state, any attempt to commit a felony is a felony, and any attempt to commit a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor.

So, if the assertions are true, it should put an end to claims for a criminal investigation. The SOL has expired and Kavanaugh cannot be prosecuted.

New facts have already come out in the few days since this allegation became public, such as Whelan knowing the accuser’s name before it was made public, the writings about O’Kavanaugh, statements by other people in that social scene, etc. And that is without putting key people like Judge under oath. The idea that there are no possible new facts to be learned from investigation is absurd motivated reasoning.

This has already been one of the fastest confirmations in the modern era of hearings. Delaying a couple of days is nothing. The massive resistance to any half-serious investigation shows the GOP is afraid of what else might emerge.

You need to have reasonable grounds to be granted one. Time to prepare your brief will be routinely granted as a matter of course. But it is the Court which controls its calendar, not the parties. They’ll accommodate the parties and Counsel within reason, but, you can’t go around making demands and expecting them to be accepted.