Supreme Court of the United States

[OaklandA's]

Yeah, hard to see a third option here.

I think the third option is that Feinstein was preserving the anonymity of Ford. If Ford wanted to remain anonymous, it would be very difficult to question Kavanaugh, because he would justifiably want to know who was accusing him. Once Ford agreed to have her name revealed last Sunday, everything changed.

[Sour Masher]

"I also got the impression you feel differently about Kavanaugh, and that is ok, because it is a different case, with different evidence."

but that seems to have been made up out of thin air. I don't think I have commented about him. you've been doing some of the very things you have complained about. (it's true that there is far less evidence, at least so far, than the pile of evidence surrounding a guy I won't mention.)

I want this woman to get a fair hearing. I believe something that terrified her happened three decades ago. I don't know if it was Kavanaugh, but I don't know that it wasn't (if it wasn't, I wouldn't assume she is lying, but more likely traumatized). making broad assumptions is popular because I think most people in general want this guy on the bench or they don't. if this exact same issue was raised, with this set of facts, it's staggering to think of how many people would be switching sides - which is ridiculous.

So we agree on everything yet somehow are arguing. Mind blown. You made comments about how I should be careful about how low the standard of evidence should be in such cases, or guys on my side might be brought down as well. I can also pull quotes that implied you were uneasy with the strength of the calls for Kavanaugh's head, and that such allegations would be par for the course from now on, so we should not be so quick to set a precedent in this case. That is how I read it. If that isn't your position, my mistake. Of course, it would be easier if we were all upfront and clear with our positions. Or folks are left inferring positions based on available evidence.

[Sour Masher]

I think the third option is that Feinstein was preserving the anonymity of Ford. If Ford wanted to remain anonymous, it would be very difficult to question Kavanaugh, because he would justifiably want to know who was accusing him. Once Ford agreed to have her name revealed last Sunday, everything changed.

Yeah, I originally assumed that, but I do wonder if the timing was strategic, for Feinstein. Even if that is true, though, we are where we are. And I hope Dr. Ford has the courage to push this and is fairly treated and heard.

[nots]

I think the third option is that Feinstein was preserving the anonymity of Ford. If Ford wanted to remain anonymous, it would be very difficult to question Kavanaugh, because he would justifiably want to know who was accusing him. Once Ford agreed to have her name revealed last Sunday, everything changed.

That would be more credible if Ford hadn’t taken a lie detector in August. If she wanted to preserve anonymity, that is a curious decision.

[OaklandA's]

That would be more credible if Ford hadn’t taken a lie detector in August. If she wanted to preserve anonymity, that is a curious decision.

??? Even though she took the lie detector test (and contacted the Washington Post in the summer), her name had not been publicly released. She also used her name in the letter to her congresswoman in July. She decided to allow her name to be to the public on Sunday, September 16. But plenty of people knew her name before that, but were preserving her anonymity, at her request.

[Judge Jude]

So we agree on everything yet somehow are arguing. Mind blown. You made comments about how I should be careful about how low the standard of evidence should be in such cases, or guys on my side might be brought down as well. I can also pull quotes that implied you were uneasy with the strength of the calls for Kavanaugh's head, and that such allegations would be par for the course from now on, so we should not be so quick to set a precedent in this case. That is how I read it. If that isn't your position, my mistake. Of course, it would be easier if we were all upfront and clear with our positions. Or folks are left inferring positions based on available evidence.

the fact that people called for Kavanaugh's head already indeed is troublesome - but not because he is a Republican, but because he is a judge with what has appeared, at least, to be a stellar record.

if he is not confirmed, then yes I do fear that the right will go after the next D nominee this way, whether the charges are provable or not. at the point I was talking about, we had no location (I think we still don't) and no corroborating evidence from that time (she has said that she told no one, I believe, until her therapist in 2012). IF that's as far as we get, then down the rabbit hole we go.

how this makes Kavanaugh "my guy" indeed is mind-blowing. I want everyone to get a fair shake. anyone who days ago already made up their mind is not someone I can take seriously, from either side.

finally, I would like this vote to be postponed another week or two.

[Redbirds Fan]

Chance, once again you nailed it. This is just another stall tactic, it’s the four corners offense of judicial hearings and partisanship. I’m not the least bit surprised that the Dem are pulling this kind of wild Hail Mary.

I don’t think anyone should be dismissive of her claims, but after this long memories change. What does an FBI investigation reveal after 35 years? It just stymies and obfuscates the process further. The Dems seem to forget that this is an indirect result of thier waiver of rules on judiciary appointments. Yes, I understand that there were “reasons”, such as the GOP being difficult in getting appointments through, and that while Biden didn’t go as far as the SC appointments, you do reap what you sow.

Is there anything other than she said, he said and he said? There is no evidence besides There is no blue dress. The only person who purportedly “was there” says he doesn’t recall a thing like that happening. Am I surprised, nope. So what does an investigation reveal? Are there other women lining up to make similar claims? Aggressive behavior usually isn’t a one off event.

You see, that's the thing about an investigation. You never know what it will it reveal.

As a 20+ year prosecutor, I can tell you there is seldom such thing as a "he said, she said" case. There are facts out there waiting to prove or disprove her claim. Why not take a week or two and let the FBI find them one way or the other? It's what they do.

[Bernie Brewer]

You see, that's the thing about an investigation. You never know what it will it reveal.

As a 20+ year prosecutor, I can tell you there is seldom such thing as a "he said, she said" case. There are facts out there waiting to prove or disprove her claim. Why not take a week or two and let the FBI find them one way or the other? It's what they do.

A week or two is certainly reasonable but can a “thorough investigation” really happen that quickly for something that occurred 35 years ago? I’m skeptical, and even if it could, then what trick will be pulled? Because not withstanding her legitimate right to be heard, this was staged!

Not in response to you but someone else who said she agreed to go public and release her name. It is my understanding that she didn’t agree for her name, it was released by a political operative without her consent. I may be wrong and would love a link to something that says otherwise.

[Sour Masher]

how this makes Kavanaugh "my guy" indeed is mind-blowing. I want everyone to get a fair shake. anyone who days ago already made up their mind is not someone I can take seriously, from either side.

I'm pretty certain I never called Kavanaugh "your guy." All I was truly certain about regarding your opinion of the Kavanaugh situation is that Bill Clinton is NOT your guy. That was made so clear it is what Bob Ryan would call a "metaphysical certitude."

On reflection, I will say I have likely been too flippant in saying we should err on the side of caution and likely move on to the next candidate. Of course, we should gather as many facts about the case as we can and consider them all. Part of my stance is based on my cynicism that the court is now so partisan that the individuals who get appointed seem to not matter too much. Everyone votes like a robot, so each is an easily replaced cog in the partisan machinery. If Kavanaugh is tainted, put up!the next guy. I'm not a believer in the dems taking the Senate, which also informs my stance.

But as another poster pointed out, Chance, I think, some judges at least do show moments of individuality and vote against expectations. So the individual rather than the ideology they represent does matter, for some judges, on occasion. It sure hasn't felt like that much lately, though.

[Judge Jude]

Many of the most ardent liberals on the Court - Earl Warren, William Brennan, Henry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David Souter -all were appointed by Republicans. The key "swing vote" judges - Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy - also were R selections. Warren Burger voted to preserve a woman's right to an abortion. William Rehnquist backed making the "Miranda warning" for suspects permanent.

I think the last D-appointed judge who didn't toe the party line was Whizzer White, a JFK appointee, more than a half-century ago.

as an independent, I find it refreshing to see judges whose ruling can't be predicted years in advance of the case (conservatives, of course find this infuriating). Kagan of the D appointees has done that. the late Scalia, while certainly conservative, could surprise. he protected the right of Americans to burn the flag - kicking and screaming all the way, but he did it (and rightly so).

.............

"I'm pretty certain I never called Kavanaugh "your guy."

Sourmasher wrote this earlier:

"It is pretty clear to me reading the posts from JJ, Bernie 1jay, chancellor, etc that when folks here, and I assume when Republicans generally, bring up other cases where men have gotten away with abuse, they are not doing it as a rallying cry and reminder that we must now be better. It is to point out, "your guy got away with it, and your side didn't criticize him, so now our guy gets to get away with it, and anyone on your side is a hypocrite if you try to criticize him or hold him accountable."

[Sour Masher]

"I'm pretty certain I never called Kavanaugh "your guy."

Sourmasher wrote this earlier:

"It is pretty clear to me reading the posts from JJ, Bernie 1jay, chancellor, etc that when folks here, and I assume when Republicans generally, bring up other cases where men have gotten away with abuse, they are not doing it as a rallying cry and reminder that we must now be better. It is to point out, "your guy got away with it, and your side didn't criticize him, so now our guy gets to get away with it, and anyone on your side is a hypocrite if you try to criticize him or hold him accountable."

Yes, I suppose I was guilty of some unfair conflation there. While you are a long time poster that predates me, in my time posting in the sports bar, you have shied away from politics until recently. I guess I did not have enough evidence to correctly infer your political leanings. It seems to me, based on the small sample size, that you lean conservative/Republican. I'm now aware you label yourself as an Independent, but if you had to pick a left or right lane, is it fair to say you'd pick right?

Some context is important here as well. You may not have been keeping up with these sorts of discussions over the last couple of years here, as I know you haven't liked the vitriol sometimes involved. But as someone who has been an active reader of such threads the last couple of years, I have seen, frequently, the same responses to criticisms of Republicans. So often, so very often, there is a swift pivot from talking about the case at hand to deflecting towards past transgressions of Democrats, toward pointing out the hypocrisy rather than debating the merits of the case at hand. I think such discussions are fair on their own, but it gets oh so tiring to have to be met with deflection and whataboutery on such issues, especially when it seems we all agree that we can and should all do better.

All I can promise, as I plead for us to talk about the situations at hand rather than play that game is that I won't engage in such behavior when, inevitably, a Democrat faces such charges. If I defend someone in the future, it will be based on the merits of the specific situation and the context of that situation. We don't have to he monolithic in our thinking. If it is obvious that we are damning someone or giving someone a pass solely based on a D or an R by their name, that is just and fair to call out. But it is also possible that someone defends one person and condemns another based on their opinions of the specifics of each case. That isn't necessarily hypocrisy or favoritism shown based on politics. It may be, of course, and I do not deny that happens, often. But I haven't seen it too often here.

[Judge Jude]

"I'm now aware you label yourself as an Independent, but if you had to pick a left or right lane, is it fair to say you'd pick right?"

no. the left point of view is far more represented here, so I don't like to be redundant.

there is a fascinating phenomenon called "parallax," described as "a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.[1][2] The term is derived from Ancient Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning 'alternation'. Due to foreshortening, nearby objects show a larger parallax than farther objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances. "

if a D becomes President in 2021, I would expect SCOTUS appointments that are obviously of high quality and which should be met with overwhelming support. sadly, that won't happen because both of these parties have devolved terribly in the last 30 years.

I was opposed to the Merrick Garland debacle, because I don't want a SCOTUS seat left empty for a year. I don't care who nominated him, and while some Ds like Biden left a fig leaf of ground cover in the 1990s, I reject that argument. but Garland is no more "my guy" than Kavanaugh is (and no less. both are overwhelmingly qualified, and absent scandal, those who vote in craven fashion against such nominees expose their lack of character. that goes for all of the recent nominees I can think of that came to a vote).

...........

"But as someone who has been an active reader of such threads the last couple of years, I have seen, frequently, the same responses to criticisms of Republicans. So often, so very often, there is a swift pivot from talking about the case at hand to deflecting towards past transgressions of Democrats, toward pointing out the hypocrisy rather than debating the merits of the case at hand. I think such discussions are fair on their own, but it gets oh so tiring to have to be met with deflection and whataboutery on such issues, especially when it seems we all agree that we can and should all do better. "

I can appreciate that, and can see why you would conflate me into that. maybe it might be worth another thought about why Clinton's disgraceful history pisses me off. try to imagine that maybe I hated the trashing those women took, political party be damned. hell, I voted for Clinton in 1992. I know it feels these days as if everyone is rooting for the laundry. it's just not how I think.

when I first registered to vote in 1979, the little old ladies in my town got a kick out of me saying I was an "independent" - back then, it was relatively rare. they looked at me as if I was a "special" voter. I practically expected to be patted on the head.

finally, I appreciate your ever-constructive tone. I have struggled with that of late. but I knew I was right about Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and I am right about him now. there are just stages of denial that are generally going to take a little more time, I guess. I just have to wait - and way, way more importantly, so do survivors of sexual assault.

[Sour Masher]

but I knew I was right about Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and I am right about him now. there are just stages of denial that are generally going to take a little more time, I guess. I just have to wait - and way, way more importantly, so do survivors of sexual assault.

The phenomena of partisan favoritism and handing out passes based on politics that you are pointing out and that very rightly frustrates you is absolutely an important issue that you are right to highlight, and you are right that Bill Clinton is a pretty massive piece of lumbar in the eye of the Democratic Party on this issue. (I think we disagree on how big of an albatross around Dems' necks HRC is on this specific issue, but I understand your perspective on her as well).

I imagine we'd have engaged in a very different dialogue on this issue if you'd brought up this important point in just a slightly different context, like as a response to a different post, or even as its own thread (I think political hypocrisy is a big enough issue to support its own thread--Jon Stewart made a nice career out of pointing it out). I don't mean to shut down such a discussion, but merely want to here from folks on the current issues on their own merit as well. I think a thread on holding all of our leaders accountable, consistently, would be interesting. It might help some of us, myself included, get out of the media bubble we sometimes find ourselves in. For instance, I must admit I was not as aware of Ellison's case as I might have been were he a Republican. Folks on the other side of the political spectrum have prompted me to follow that more closely now (I still have questions about his case that would be better suited in a different thread, maybe, like I haven't found a compelling argument on why his accuser won't release the video she claims shows his abuse...I'm perplexed by her reasoning on that, but again, better for another thread).

[onejayhawk]

I think the third option is that Feinstein was preserving the anonymity of Ford. If Ford wanted to remain anonymous, it would be very difficult to question Kavanaugh, because he would justifiably want to know who was accusing him. Once Ford agreed to have her name revealed last Sunday, everything changed.

What is justifiable about that. The principle is that a person has a right to face his/her accuser(s). The timing is calculated to minimize the response time available which also violates a fundamental principle.

You see, that's the thing about an investigation. You never know what it will it reveal. As a 20+ year prosecutor, I can tell you there is seldom such thing as a "he said, she said" case. There are facts out there waiting to prove or disprove her claim. Why not take a week or two and let the FBI find them one way or the other? It's what they do.

Feinstein's timing was arranged to preclude this option, was it not? Back in July it would have been obvious.

There is also serious doubt she is willing to testify under oath. Do you make anything of that?

J

[gcstomp]

Left is not over represented on boards. Left is somewhat a majority in country, somewhat majority on boards, and right is not a well defined catch all. Conservative used to mean a call for fiscal restraint, but right now we have a more aggressive biting into debt, at precisely the time when debt should be going down, low unemployment and good economy. I would like to see what right means to particular posters.

There is also serious doubt she is willing to testify under oath. Do you make anything of that?

Ford wants there to be a re-opened FBI background check with this event looked into, prior to sitting in on a kangaroo court. A brief 3 day check, same type as done with Anita Hill and despite Trump saying its not what FBI does, background checks for SC nominees is their wheelhouse.

Would a liar really be pleading for a check from FBI, and we know its a felony to lie to FBI questioning, or would a liar be asking for us to press forward never mind getting some needed info. Kavanaugh issued a flat denial he was even at party, a simple FBI check maybe would turn up if he were there, if there were witnesses that could place both parties there and further context. That Ford requests this prior to being flattened by some of same people who so well handled the Anita Hill inquisition is unreasonable?

Same deal with polygraph, a liar would not have a seasoned retired FBI person administer a polygraph on her, and be willing to do it again, while Kavanaugh of course would not address such a thing. If one wanted to dismiss test as unicorn poop, the willingness to have it done has to carry more weight than objection to one.

Ford has had to relocate her family and has had death threats issued against her, why would someone subject themselves to this unless they were pained from the event 35 years ago and still carried that pain, but feels they needed to speak up in some way. Also, a victim speaking up is already heroic, majority of victims never press charges as ugly accusations against victim is just one of the costs. The myth is that rape victims lie about incident, when its actually 2 to 8 percent of rapes falsely reported, same percent as other felonies, per 2009 comprehensive report False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute NonStranger Sexual Assault.

Its far fetched to think Ford is a liar and this is a political maneuver, if one thinks about it from Ford pov, and her cost to her quality of life.