• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?

D

Doc91478

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
2,778
Reaction score
790
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/...allegation-disqualify.html?platform=hootsuite
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



~~~~~~
What the leadership of Democratic Party is doing to this man is wrong. I have followed this story closely and I have my doubts about the accuser story but there is a lot that we do not know and so I am willing to keep an open mind and hear what she has to say. Regrettably, most of the comments I read (especially from women) assume that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty....that he is a rapist and if you are foolish enough to challenge that assumption then you are attacked and accused of sexism. I still believe strongly that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not in the court of public opinion. That is why I do not support The #MeToo movement. Kavanaugh is innocent until a jury says otherwise. The only problem is that any statute of limitations have long expired.
Then there's Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.
Obama and his administration for eight year divided this country. The worst thing that was done during his eight years, was the political weaponization of agencies of government against Democrat opposition. Given where the Democrats want to take the country, their malicious acts and vitriolic discourse I do not see myself supporting any Democrat until I see a more mainstream approach.
 
I would accept the possibility if there was some sort of evidence beyond a simple accusation. But so far that is all that there is. An accusation and NOTHING else.
 
Doc91478 said:
How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/...allegation-disqualify.html?platform=hootsuite
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



~~~~~~
What the leadership of Democratic Party is doing to this man is wrong. I have followed this story closely and I have my doubts about the accuser story but there is a lot that we do not know and so I am willing to keep an open mind and hear what she has to say. Regrettably, most of the comments I read (especially from women) assume that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty....that he is a rapist and if you are foolish enough to challenge that assumption then you are attacked and accused of sexism. I still believe strongly that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not in the court of public opinion. That is why I do not support The #MeToo movement. Kavanaugh is innocent until a jury says otherwise. The only problem is that any statute of limitations have long expired.
Then there's Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.
Obama and his administration for eight year divided this country. The worst thing that was done during his eight years, was the political weaponization of agencies of government against Democrat opposition. Given where the Democrats want to take the country, their malicious acts and vitriolic discourse I do not see myself supporting any Democrat until I see a more mainstream approach.
Click to expand...

It's another witch hunt by the Left for sure. They tried this same crap against Clarence Thomas back in 1991. Liberals are in desperation mode at this point. They lose the SCOTUS then all their pet causes go up in flames, fortunately.
 
Doc91478 said:
How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/...allegation-disqualify.html?platform=hootsuite
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



~~~~~~
What the leadership of Democratic Party is doing to this man is wrong. I have followed this story closely and I have my doubts about the accuser story but there is a lot that we do not know and so I am willing to keep an open mind and hear what she has to say. Regrettably, most of the comments I read (especially from women) assume that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty....that he is a rapist and if you are foolish enough to challenge that assumption then you are attacked and accused of sexism. I still believe strongly that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not in the court of public opinion. That is why I do not support The #MeToo movement. Kavanaugh is innocent until a jury says otherwise. The only problem is that any statute of limitations have long expired.
Then there's Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.
Obama and his administration for eight year divided this country. The worst thing that was done during his eight years, was the political weaponization of agencies of government against Democrat opposition. Given where the Democrats want to take the country, their malicious acts and vitriolic discourse I do not see myself supporting any Democrat until I see a more mainstream approach.
Click to expand...

What pathetic tripe.

A. The statute of limitations has not run out
B. Ed Whelan's bonkers and libelous statements have been retracted and he apologized for them.
C. Obama didn't divide the country.
D. Such weaponization didn't happen.
E. Most people aren't saying he's guilty; they merely want an investigation, something that you clearly fear.
 
a 35+ year old case, where no actual physical harm exists...(emotional maybe)

a case where no witnesses can corroborate the accusers accusations

no case was filed with any law enforcement agency

no report was made to school authorities

there is nothing to go on other than the he said/she said event

on top of that...you have to take into consideration, that she is a renowned democrat...and with this story could maybe keep a avowed conservative of the SCOTUS bench

so...yeah....i need a LOT more than her story....and i havent seen or heard anything plausible yet
 
Doc91478 said:
How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/...allegation-disqualify.html?platform=hootsuite
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

~~~~~~
What the leadership of Democratic Party is doing to this man is wrong. I have followed this story closely and I have my doubts about the accuser story but there is a lot that we do not know and so I am willing to keep an open mind and hear what she has to say. Regrettably, most of the comments I read (especially from women) assume that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty....that he is a rapist and if you are foolish enough to challenge that assumption then you are attacked and accused of sexism. I still believe strongly that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not in the court of public opinion. That is why I do not support The #MeToo movement. Kavanaugh is innocent until a jury says otherwise. The only problem is that any statute of limitations have long expired.
Then there's Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.
Obama and his administration for eight year divided this country. The worst thing that was done during his eight years, was the political weaponization of agencies of government against Democrat opposition. Given where the Democrats want to take the country, their malicious acts and vitriolic discourse I do not see myself supporting any Democrat until I see a more mainstream approach.
Click to expand...

I've read in multiple places that the statute of limitations in MD has NOT in fact expired. And Ed Whelan made a fool of himself by accusing someone ELSE of the alleged crime, complete with photos of a house and architectural drawings, and naming this person who might have been the REAL wrongdoer. So whatever comes out, it needs to be produced by someone other than that now discredited hack.

As to the bigger issue - what is the required burden of proof - the answer sort of depends I think. The article is clearly correct - there is no requirement in these hearings to establish something with a conviction, when the question before any given senator is a yes or no vote. Obviously a senator can vote no for any reason or no reason at all, or just because they don't like him or don't like his judicial philosophy. They may also, clearly and obviously, consider his character and they don't need a conviction to consider this allegation - they can and SHOULD IMO use their judgment to evaluate the credibility of the accuser and the accused. Hopefully we'll get them both under oath, and get Judge under oath, at a minimum.

One more point about "the court of public opinion" - say you hear from a couple of neighbors that money and/or jewelry repeatedly went missing after a babysitter or cleaning person was left in the house unattended. You have no obligation to ignore that, and you'd be IMO stupid to ignore it if you trust the neighbors, and that person being charged and convicted, or not, isn't all that relevant. That's using the "court of public opinion" to fire or not hire a person without a conviction in a court of law.

It's just an inappropriate standard to demand conviction or else we are all under some ethical or moral obligation to treat everyone NOT convicted as honest and upstanding. We could all come up with dozens of examples where we use the "court of public opinion" to avoid certain businesses, people, politicians, job applicants, etc. etc. etc. and we are CORRECT in doing it. Not always, obviously, but the point is we evaluate the accuser and the accused and the facts we do know of a given situation, and use our JUDGMENT to make decisions in the gray, all the time. That's the correct approach - the alternative is irrational.
 
I would accept a preponderance of evidence standard. In other words, evidence must be brought forward showing that the alleged offense is more likely than not to have occurred. A scurrilous accusation lacking key details and corroborated by no one except possibly-misremembered rumors by people who do not wish to come forward cannot suffice.
 
gdgyva said:
a 35+ year old case, where no actual physical harm exists...(emotional maybe)

a case where no witnesses can corroborate the accusers accusations

no case was filed with any law enforcement agency

no report was made to school authorities

there is nothing to go on other than the he said/she said event

on top of that...you have to take into consideration, that she is a renowned democrat...and with this story could maybe keep a avowed conservative of the SCOTUS bench

so...yeah....i need a LOT more than her story....and i havent seen or heard anything plausible yet
Click to expand...

Just curious what makes her "renowned" as a Democrat?

Also, I'm not sure what's implausible about the accusation - that kind of thing happens all the time. It's also plausible and common for the victims to remain quiet for long periods of time. Just as a general story it's common as dirt, all of it. What makes it uncommon is the accused and the setting, but the facts of the alleged case aren't extraordinary in any way - the opposite.

FWIW, what makes the story at least more believable to me is that she put a friend of Kavanaugh in the room as a witness to the alleged assault. Who makes up a story, then invents a friend of the accused as a corroborating witness?
 
Bassman said:
It's another witch hunt by the Left for sure. They tried this same crap against Clarence Thomas back in 1991. Liberals are in desperation mode at this point. They lose the SCOTUS then all their pet causes go up in flames, fortunately.
Click to expand...

Why is every investigation into a conservative a 'witch hunt'?
I'll tell you why- because whining and victimstance has become the natural posture of the right whinge. They've been so accustomed to being in opposition and up on their hind legs howling for more investigations that they're lost, helpless, now they're in power.
It's all so dramatic, so 'look how badly I'm being treated', it's become trickle-down pathos. Following the example of the leader. You almost want to comfort a conservative, give him a safe place.
 
Funny thing is, you guys are judging without evidence either way.

If you judge the guy, that one is obvious.

If you judge the gal, you're calling her a liar with no more evidence than you'd have for judging the guy. Every little thing you would bring up to discredit her is as unsubstantiated as it would be to discredit him.

It's not important that a small minority of women falsely allege. What's important is that you choose to believe the man every single time (if he is a Republican). This is the hypocrisy of the Rightwing #MeToo Anti Movement.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would accept the possibility if there was some sort of evidence beyond a simple accusation. But so far that is all that there is. An accusation and NOTHING else.
Click to expand...

It is very significant that it is an unsworn accusation. She has never sworn in an affidavit her accusation is true. Without that, there is no evidence whatsoever. I could send a letter to someone in Congress saying Dr. Ford violently assaulted me and if it is unsworn I would face no jeopardy for doing so even if 100% false and provably false.
 
The new filibuster in government is just finding someone who will accuse whoever you don't like of sexual assault... and you can delay anything!

bad precedent... and harms peoples trust in woman accusers.
 
What 'evidence' exists? Like...at all?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would accept the possibility if there was some sort of evidence beyond a simple accusation. But so far that is all that there is. An accusation and NOTHING else.
Click to expand...

So you favor waiting for an investigation. I respect this opinion.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would accept the possibility if there was some sort of evidence beyond a simple accusation. But so far that is all that there is. An accusation and NOTHING else.
Click to expand...

I'm with Trump, where's the police report? Otherwise she's got nothing. She doesn't even have a credible witness on her side.
 
joko104 said:
It is very significant that it is an unsworn accusation. She has never sworn in an affidavit her accusation is true. Without that, there is no evidence whatsoever. I could send a letter to someone in Congress saying Dr. Ford violently assaulted me and if it is unsworn I would face no jeopardy for doing so even if 100% false and provably false.
Click to expand...

That's the point of having her interviewed by FBI, and/or under oath in the Senate.
 
American said:
I'm with Trump, where's the police report?
Click to expand...

Parroting Trump, what a surprise.

Over 70% of sexual assaults go unreported. So this whole 'police report or it didn't happen' routine is disconnected from reality.
 
For me to oppose the appointment on the grounds of these allegations I would just need to be convinced that it is more likely than not that the allegations are true. It is a job interview,not a trial. But I haven’t even been convinced that far yet.
 
Considering it’s based on he said/she said. What evidence indeed...
 
Doc91478 said:
How Strong Does the Evidence Against Kavanaugh Need to Be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/...allegation-disqualify.html?platform=hootsuite
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



~~~~~~
What the leadership of Democratic Party is doing to this man is wrong. I have followed this story closely and I have my doubts about the accuser story but there is a lot that we do not know and so I am willing to keep an open mind and hear what she has to say. Regrettably, most of the comments I read (especially from women) assume that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty....that he is a rapist and if you are foolish enough to challenge that assumption then you are attacked and accused of sexism. I still believe strongly that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not in the court of public opinion. That is why I do not support The #MeToo movement. Kavanaugh is innocent until a jury says otherwise. The only problem is that any statute of limitations have long expired.
Then there's Ed Whelan, Justice Scalia’s former law clerk and president of conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), came out in defense of Brett Kavanaugh and said compelling evidence will come out next week exonerating Kavanaugh.
Obama and his administration for eight year divided this country. The worst thing that was done during his eight years, was the political weaponization of agencies of government against Democrat opposition. Given where the Democrats want to take the country, their malicious acts and vitriolic discourse I do not see myself supporting any Democrat until I see a more mainstream approach.
Click to expand...

Beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Truly, the only thing that matters to the democrats, the media and most leftists, is that they don't like him, and they DONT want him confirmed. As shady and questionable as this new claim of high school sexual impropriety is, it's really irrelevant. As is always the case as far as most MSM journalists, progressives and democrats are concerned, the only question is whether the accused is a Republican or a Democrat.

If he is a republican, he is automatically guilty as far as most of them are concerned, and that's precisely how they will treat him.

If he is a democrat, he will be at a minimum, given the benefit of the doubt. But as in most cases involving democrats, he will be innocent in their minds, and their reporting will reflect that. Remember how the multiple women who came out against Clinton were basically ignored and even ridiculed by the media and by Hillary. Remember the big progressive democrat friend and fundraiser, Harvey Weinstein, who the media REFUSED to report on, and who the democrats in NY REFUSED to prosecute, for well over a decade. Until it couldn't be swept under the rug anymore!
 
OlNate said:
Funny thing is, you guys are judging without evidence either way.

If you judge the guy, that one is obvious.

If you judge the gal, you're calling her a liar with no more evidence than you'd have for judging the guy. Every little thing you would bring up to discredit her is as unsubstantiated as it would be to discredit him.

It's not important that a small minority of women falsely allege. What's important is that you choose to believe the man every single time (if he is a Republican). This is the hypocrisy of the Rightwing #MeToo Anti Movement.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, innocence is to be presumed unless proven otherwise. This is how society works and does so regardless of gender. Had the roles been the reversed and the accuser male and the accused female, it would be the same. I think given the circumstances at the very least the preponderance of the evidence should be in the accusers favor before derailing this man's career and effectively ruining his life. As it stands now it is the words of one individual versus two. Without any other information to go on, there is simply nothing that can be done. This is why if someone is assaulted it should be reported immediately and evidence and statements collected, waiting years after the fact only hurts yourself and others as in many cases abusers will go on to harm others. If someone doesn't want to go to the authorities for their own sake then they should think of the others that could be potentially harmed due to their silence. Bill Cosby is an excellent example, the fact he was able to get away with hurting so many women is due to the silence of those he abused, this may be an unpopular opinion but while they are not directly responsible those victims that remained silent were complicit in that monster being free and hurting others.
 
Kav had a 17 y/o penis. What more proof do we need?
 
JasperL said:
Just curious what makes her "renowned" as a Democrat?

Also, I'm not sure what's implausible about the accusation - that kind of thing happens all the time. It's also plausible and common for the victims to remain quiet for long periods of time. Just as a general story it's common as dirt, all of it. What makes it uncommon is the accused and the setting, but the facts of the alleged case aren't extraordinary in any way - the opposite.

FWIW, what makes the story at least more believable to me is that she put a friend of Kavanaugh in the room as a witness to the alleged assault. Who makes up a story, then invents a friend of the accused as a corroborating witness?
Click to expand...

A witness with a known history of black-out binge drinking.
Another person's life thrown into a salad spinner.
 
Acadia said:
A witness with a known history of black-out binge drinking.
Another person's life thrown into a salad spinner.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, so she's super devious, and essentially a sociopath, make up a story that destroys TWO lives based on nothing. Anything else in her life point in this direction?

The other possibility is two drunk guys did what was alleged. Seems more likely to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom