"She turned me into a newt."
"You don't look like a newt."
"I got better."
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 ...
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
When you accuse a man of a crime, the evidence must be beyond a certainty.
That isn’t the case here.
I’m listening to the radio now, and the report is that options and alternatives are being discussed behind closed doors. Now, maybe Grassley will reject all those options and alternatives and announce that since Ford didn’t meet the conditions of the deadline she has Monday to give testimony or she loses the opportunity. However, the snag appears to be Flake, and Grassley is trying to keep him on the reservation. The scuttlebutt is that Flake is carrying water for Ford in the attempt to delay and stonewall the hearing.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q:”We’re you touched in a sexual place?”
A:”no”
...then how does any rational person believe in a claim of “attempted rape”???????????????????
We’re not talking about a rape happening or even being touched in a sexual area. So how on earth can anybody justify a headline of “attempted rape”????
It’s such a subjective claim it’s absurd - 35 years removed no less.
How evil they are, to try to smear and destroy a good man with false claims.
Just say, “The claims do not rise to the standard of ‘attempted rape’ or any other crime, along with no evidence - therefore we’ll move to a vote”.
No Man is safe if the accusation alone is sufficient to convict.
The New York Times keeps using the word “credible”. What makes this credible? Nothing.
“Somebody saying something isn’t evidence.”
Worked against Bill Cosby.
I guess if you get enough people saying something, it becomes evidence.
Before you have "strong evidence" you have to have some evidence to begin with.
This case is void of any evidence at all. Just vague "recollections" of a drunken party and teenage antics four decades ago.
But the Left doesn't need evidence. They just need to make-up stories and throw them out there for their base to believe. Evidence and facts are immaterial to what they are doing here.
They are simply trying to destroy Kavanaugh with nothing based in reality.
"She turned me into a newt."
"You don't look like a newt."
"I got better."
For a conviction, yes. This has a lower bar...however the accusation isn’t even a complete one, and thus fails even the standards to investigate.
A: Far more evidence than a foggy, 36-year old repressed memory and alleged witnessed that won’t corroborate her claims.
We know the name of one of the witnesses - Mark Judge - who claims nothing of the sort happened.
The witness I’m concerned about is the female guest at the alleged party. What if she’s a Democrat? A Dem who hated President Trump and wants the convenience of killing unwanted babies would gladly lie for money or the chance to derail Kavanaugh’s appointment.
So far, there not ONE IOTA of evidence that she was sexually assaulted by anybody. ZILCH! NOTHING!
It’s even worse than that. It’s a she kind of said but doesn’t really remember /, they said.
Remember when you were a Kid and an Adult told you that if you did something wrong it would go on your Permanent Record?
Now we find out that even if you didn’t do anything wrong, any accusation that you did is also added to your Permanent Record. Well, if you didn’t grow up to be a Liberal that is.
All this time I thought the Adults were just making up that Permanent Record stuff. Who knew?
I'll go lower than that...let's start with credible. In this instance, the alleged "victim" cannot produce a credible accusation with specifics. No names, no place in particular. She won't name names because that opens it up to refutation by the other attendee's. This is strictly a political hit job, and there is no reason to take it seriously.
and her dad’s daytime job was pres of a golf course according to the MSM -what a lousy cover for a bunch of lousy people and a lousy daughter they raised
An all-male golf club where seven presidents have played.
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.