
-Marie-
Tim
West Coast2h ago
Times Pick
Tim | West Coast
Beyond a reasonable doubt. And, I have no horse in this race. Here is why I feel this way.
Ms. Ford has requested that Mr. Kavanaugh not be present at her testimony which belies the very principles underpinning her professional successes as a psychologist, researcher and statistician. She knows better. So, what could she be up to?
Ms. Ford may see an opportunity to quickly settle a score with Mr. Kavanaugh as she, alone, sees being wronged by him. She may not be interested in due-process because the outcome may not settle the score. To me, she wants certainty that the score is settled. So, she baits Diane Feinstein with a highly sensitive, explosive, confidential claim of sexual assault against Mr. Kavanaugh. Ms. Ford bet that the claim would be leaked which, when leaked, would go viral and artificially amplify the significance and the seriousness of the claims, anonymously made. against Mr. Kavanaugh. Then, she allows her name to be revealed, offers to testify and then withdraws the offer. Now, while everyone is back on their heels trying to not appear insensitive to her pain as a victim of sexual assault - and before agreeing to testify- she guilts the judiciary committee enough to have them unwittingly set up her, personal and private, Kangaroo Court.
This woman is beyond sharp and cunning. I'd hold her testimony to the same principles she necessarily is using in her professional life; beyond a reasonable doubt
Frank the Crank wrote:Excellent comment from today's NYT> . . .
The Presumption of Guilt
The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 21, 2018 6:57 p.m. ET
“As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.”
—Anita Hill, Sept. 18, 2018
“Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.”
—Sen. Maize Hirono (D., Hawaii)
The last-minute accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by any measure. But if there is a silver lining, it is that the episode is providing an education for Americans on the new liberal standard of legal and political due process.
As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.
***
This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge.
The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or in some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts. Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta.
Potomac Watch Podcast
Brett Kavanaugh and Due Process
Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you. Ms. Hirono’s standard of credibility by gender would have appalled the civil-rights campaigners of a half century ago who marched in part against Southern courts that treated the testimony of black Americans as inherently less credible than that of whites. Yet now the liberal heirs of those marchers want to impose a double standard of credibility by gender.
Frank the Crank wrote:I think she's a mental case.
Frank the Crank wrote:Leland Ingraham Keyser, a long term friend of Ford's . . .
Marie wrote:Frank the Crank wrote:Leland Ingraham Keyser, a long term friend of Ford's . . .
Before I get to that:
Do you understand the idea of a forum, Frank? It's not like Twitter, where you just jump in and shoot off your face and walk away. It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION.
I have responded to your posts with FACTS. As I noted in my last reply, Kavanaugh's trouble didn't just arise with Dr. Ford. There already was the other serious problem of his lies, and unlike Dr. Ford's allegations, Kavanaugh's lies are easily provable.
How do you think the other justices will regard Kavanaugh, should he manage to get through this process, despite everything that is known about him? He wouldn't have the same confidence or stature as the other justices.
He and they would know that he's a fraud and a lightweight. And he may still end up answering to charges in MD. Is that what you want to see? It that good for America?
-Marie-
Frank the Crank wrote:Marie wrote:Do you understand the idea of a forum, Frank? It's not like Twitter, where you just jump in and shoot off your face and walk away. It's supposed to be a DISCUSSION.
I need not respond to your uninformed opinions. While I believe Ford is a mental case you believe Kavanaugh is a sex criminal.
Our opinions mirror the current debate but please don't pretend that anything you put forward is fact.
Frank the Crank wrote:“Solzhenitsyn wrote that in the Soviet Union, trials were never to be treated as a matter of the guilt or innocence of the accused, but of furthering the class struggle.”
Return to “What Story Are YOU Talking About?”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests