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 ...
Not anymore. The standard is now: “Listen and Believe!!!”
There is no evidence in my eyes.
I’m so bored with this farce.i
This woman went to a school where the students bragged about their party hardy wild times. A good guess would be that she was felt-up (or more) numerous times but wasn’t bothered by it until it was necessary for a particular agenda. No doubt there are those who are busy “documenting” disgusting events that never happened concerning each and every possible selection that President Trump may make for any type of position.
Considering her involvement with a “therapist”, your (2) is a significant possibility. I’m gong with (1), though. I think it fits the utter lack of a story better.
We may first need an accusation. Christine Ford has not even spoken to accuse anyone. I haven’t heard her and I wath the news in the background constantly.
Exactly!!!
To even give this extremely old nonissue any
Credit at all is ludicrous. I won’t go through all the reasons we all know here. But this whole thing is a mockery of our justice system and women. She is a prime example of mental case and political hit job. Anyone who supports her in this sham is even worse allowing this planned moronic attack.
In case the Failing NYT didn’t notice, the evidence from many women FOR Kavanaugh as to his character and his behavior toward women as a boyfriend is extremely strong. How much does that evidence count in this ludicrous situation?
If Blasey won’t show up on Monday, tell her and her BITCH lawyers (and her cult-like #MoveOn supporters) to SHOVE IT!!!!
Confirm Judge Kavanaugh early next week, and consign the whole Blasey accusation to the dustbin of history!!!!
It doesn’t matter to Trump-hating Leftists. He’s guilty! Period.
The seat that should've been Robert Bork's.
Remind them of this. I haven't forgotten.
“I’ve been scouring the ‘net for any word as to whether the committee is sticking by the 1000 deadline. Anyone else see anything?”
No, but I did hear that Grassley is discussing options or alternatives with other senators on the Judiciary Committee at this time.
It needs to be stronger than a 35 year old Big Fat Claim.
Exactly. Until she gives a date and place, there is nothing to investigate.
Hearing she’s a campus contact for this.
CIA Undergraduate Internship Program
Deadline Month:
Other / Varying deadlines
Description:
Interested in foreign affairs? Looking for a career where you can make a difference? We invite you to participate in our Undergraduate Internship Program. This unique program is designed to give promising undergraduate students, particularly minorities and people with disabilities, the opportunity to gain practical work experience that complements their academic studies.
You will be given the opportunity to work with highly-skilled professionals and see first-hand the role the CIA plays in supporting US officials who make our country’s foreign policy. We are interested in students majoring in engineering, computer science, mathematics, economics, physical sciences, foreign languages, area studies, business administration, accounting, international relations, finance, logistics, human resources, geography, national security studies, military and foreign affairs, political science and graphic design.
Interns are required to work either a combination of one semester and one summer internship, or two 90-day summer internships.
https://haas.stanford.edu/students/cardinal-careers/fellowships/cia-undergraduate-internship-program
So there are multiple standards we could apply here beyond the strict proof beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt or demonstration by clear and convincing evidence.
Let's start with the "character testimony" standard. Under this standard testimony regarding someone's good or bad character is weighted by the gravitas of the attestant, a judge highly regarded for his jurisprudence, law school professors, colleagues of high professional standing.
Here of course we have everyone else in the - this is one of the most decent qualified human beings ever to be considered for the post.
On the other side we have one lone detractor who isn't even an attestant because among her many personal failings she can't bring herself to go on the record and say what happened. And then we have a year-book and other contemporary evidence suggesting that her testimony should be given the weight of Avanti telling us what Stormy would tell us.
I think we can dismiss her non-testimentary flimsy statement right there.
Or let's look at the political standard - does this person represent the kind of person we seek for this position. Well, we the voters decided that when we picked Trump especially because of his statements on who and what kind of person he would put on the SC. He has been true to his word. His K something different than what we were promised. We have prodigious evidence and testimony to the contrary.
The sole claim we have that the will of the voters should be thwarted rests on the inarticulate hearsay utterance of someone who certainly led a morally wayward life in high-school protected from the consequences of her actions by the kind of upperclass suburban DC white privilege that all of us would like to aspire to. Has she subsequently redeemed herself, showing that she has learned from a misspent youth and straightened herself out now leading a blameless life.
I think the answer there is a resounding NO! And so should her testimony against the character of K be weighed in the balance to thwart the will of the voters.
Even more resoundingly NO!
I sure hope the GOP does not give in to the calls from the left to abandon intellectual rigor, as they [the GOP] invariably do.
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.