Posted on 09/21/2018 6:49:38 AM PDT by TigerClaws
The allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford that at age 15 she was the victim of a sexual assault by a 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh has not only upended Judge Kavanaughs Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but has also left Americans wondering what standards should apply to an accusation like this.
Its natural to place this sort of accusation within a criminal-justice framework: the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence; the right to confront and respond to an accuser. If Judge Kavanaugh stood criminally accused of attempted rape, all of that would apply with full force. But those concepts are a poor fit for Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where theres no presumption of confirmation, and theres certainly no burden that facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
What matters here isnt law as much as politics though not (or not just) partisan politics. Confirmation hearings are also about constitutional politics the debate, involving both institutions of government and the polity, about what the Constitution means and requires.
So what standard should the Senate use in evaluating the claims made by Dr. Blasey and in deciding how they bear on Judge Kavanaughs fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court? The Senates approach to its constitutional advice and consent obligation has always depended on context. A number of factors matter: the timing of the vacancy; the justice being replaced; the nominees likely impact on the ideological makeup of the court; even the popularity of the president (very popular presidents have always had more leeway when it comes to picking justices). Then, of course, theres the nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If evidence does not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold it is not credible.
There is no “evidence”, because a crime never took place. This is all just a communist DEMONcRAT lie and ploy to delay, stall or kill Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Nothing more, nothing less.
They just couldn't find any more "enlightened" women to bite the bullet, come forward and lie their @$$e$ off.
The strength of the evidence is immaterial. First, if the incident wasn’t reported to the police when it happened, it wasn’t important back then. That makes it unimportant now. Second, what KIDS do in high school has no bearing upon how they handle themselves currently.
This isn't a criminal hearing. I think beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard to apply in this case. I'd be fine with a preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard in this situation. Ignoring the immediate case, as a general rule, I would be uncomfortable putting someone on the Supreme Court if I felt there was a reasonably good chance that he or she was involved in inappropriate behavior.
The only "evidence" she has is her accusation. Of course, that is offset by Judge Kavanaugh's denial. So we're back at zero. Long ways from even reaching the standard of preponderance of the evidence.
“I’d be fine with a preponderance of the evidence”
I would like credible proof of “death threats”
What do you base your opinion upon?
The blue dress in Clinton's case was not enough to remover him from office and that was the oval office.
This is an attack on our ability to have an effective Government. It gives fanatics--and there are many on the Left--the ability to effectively veto our right to self-government, simply by the willingness of fanatics to lie for a cause. It gives compulsion driven fanatics an effective veto over our way of life.
Consider Leftist War On Social Continuity
And above all: Our Last Chance? [Can Donald Trump Revive The "Spirit of '76?]
Did you happen to see this?
:)
Ha ha!! That’s awesome! :)
:)
As I said, I would base it on the preponderance of the evidence. This standard allows for some doubt but one side has clearly made a more compelling argument than the other. This is not a criminal case where a very high burden of proof is needed. As a senator, I would be uncomfortable voting for someone who has a reasonably good chance of having committed a serious indiscretion.
The accusation against Judge Kavanaugh is nowhere near reaching a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, let alone the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
I wasn't voting on Bill Clinton's impeachment but the evidence clearly supported his impeachment for perjury. Remember, Bill Clinton had testified under oath that he hadn't had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The DNA on the blue dress clearly proved otherwise. So regardless of which burden of proof is used, the standard was met IMO. I don't know if impeachment requires the same high burden of proof required in a criminal prosecution.
Grabbing a 15 year olds boobs today would be disqualifying. Grabbing a 15 year olds boobs by a 17 year old in 1982 was not the same crime as it was today.
This is all bullshit and I wish someone would call it out.
It has not even been established that is what happened. Let's decide if it is reasonable to even conclude such grabbing occurred. If it reasonable to conclude that it didn't happen, then the seriousness of the issue is moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.