Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?
Failing NYT ^

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 Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but has also left Americans wondering what standards should apply to an accusation like this.

It’s 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 there’s no presumption of confirmation, and there’s certainly no burden that facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

What matters here isn’t 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 Kavanaugh’s fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court? The Senate’s 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 nominee’s 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, there’s the nominee.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christineford
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last
To: Ouderkirk

If evidence does not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold it is not credible.


101 posted on 09/21/2018 9:07:20 AM PDT by DarthVader ("The biggest misconception on Free Republic is that the Deep State is invulnerable")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

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.


102 posted on 09/21/2018 9:19:22 AM PDT by Jmouse007 (Lord God Almighty, deliver us from this evil in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
I guess if you get enough people saying something, it becomes evidence.

They just couldn't find any more "enlightened" women to bite the bullet, come forward and lie their @$$e$ off.

103 posted on 09/21/2018 9:22:42 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

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.


104 posted on 09/21/2018 9:46:22 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Beyond a reasonable doubt. Which they are not even close to producing.

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.

105 posted on 09/21/2018 10:26:15 AM PDT by CommerceComet (Hillary: A unique blend of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

“I’d be fine with a preponderance of the evidence”

I would like credible proof of “death threats”


106 posted on 09/21/2018 10:29:55 AM PDT by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
How about a blue dress and a cigar?
107 posted on 09/21/2018 10:36:30 AM PDT by Know et al ( Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet
I think beyond a reasonable doubt is too high of a standard to apply in this case.

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.

108 posted on 09/21/2018 10:39:41 AM PDT by Know et al ( Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; Dick Bachert; GSWarrior; John S Mosby
This whole procedure is a travesty! The notion that if the Left--or any faction--can find someone willing to accuse a nominee for any post of something claimed to have happened decades back, when the participants were minors;--that under such obviously extremely doubtful claims of whatever, you can wreck the accused's future; is one with unlimited potential to disrupt the ability of any political institution to function effectively.

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

Compulsion For Uniformity

And above all: Our Last Chance? [Can Donald Trump Revive The "Spirit of '76?]

109 posted on 09/21/2018 10:52:54 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Amen. We should have long ago told them that we would not take seriously accusations over 36 years old, and not even an actually serious assault.

Did you happen to see this?

:)

110 posted on 09/21/2018 1:15:56 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Ha ha!! That’s awesome! :)


111 posted on 09/21/2018 1:18:40 PM PDT by RubyR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RubyR

:)


112 posted on 09/21/2018 1:40:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
What do you base your opinion upon?

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.

113 posted on 09/21/2018 1:48:38 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Hillary: A unique blend of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

Grabbing a 15 year old’s boobs today would be disqualifying. Grabbing a 15 year old’s 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.


114 posted on 09/21/2018 2:04:32 PM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Grabbing a 15 year old’s boobs today would be disqualifying. Grabbing a 15 year old’s 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.

115 posted on 09/21/2018 2:19:41 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Hillary: A unique blend of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet
I agree with your assessment. I wasn't sure if I was following or not. You have made it clear. Thank you for the explanation. FReegards.
116 posted on 09/21/2018 3:08:14 PM PDT by Know et al ( Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson