Supreme Court of the United States

[baldgriff]

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.

Is it not possible it could be both??

[gcstomp]

Rule 1. Liars do not want to speak to the FBI, they certainly dont request such before sitting before Congress.

Also, this is not a slippery slope case, where future nominees will be torpedoed by flocks of partisan liars. Why? See rule 1.

[baldgriff]

Ford very possibly can be telling the truth and Feinstein very easily could have used this in a very political manner. That is all I am saying.

I didnt say anything about a slippery slope.

[Judge Jude]

"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."

that would only make sense if she notified the Senate before the polygraph that she was taking it, and her attorney was willing to notify them of a failed polygraph. we all know that is not true.

I believe her overall, but that is a terrible argument if she had ZERO risk in taking a polygraph. and if he is innocent, they are so unreliable that he would be a fool to take one.

remember, one can't be a member of a "party of science" and then sign on to such silliness. pick a side.

[nots]

I don’t understand why Ms Ford is demanding an FBI investigation prior to speaking with the Senators. Will the results of the investigation change her testimony to the Senators? And don’t most investigations start with the victim? Seems unusual for the FBI to interview the accused without speaking to the victim first. And why has her attorney backtracked on her testifying under oath in front of the committee? Suddenly, ‘she is willing to do whatever it takes to put her story forth’ (NBC News Interview) has had some caveats added to it.

[gcstomp]

jude, i get your position of polygraph being worthless. i am firmly about science, and you feel polygraph unicorn poop. that part isnt important, although you can ponder if form of polygraphs will be used in future and if honest, you would have to say more likely than not. But its not zero risk, Ford is requesting FBI questioning. If it turned up in questioning she requested and failed a polygraph test, prior to passing one that would be game over.

but again, i would really hope you could convert polygraph to read unicorn poop, skip past it, and disagree with rule 1 or rest of what i said, and just assume i put a unicorn recipe in middle to be ignored.

[Judge Jude]

If she failed a polygraph, I would NOT conclude that should be "game over" - that's the whole problem. maybe you'd be ok with that, but not me. a distressed person asking about a traumatizing event plus a polygraph seems like a dumb idea no matter what the outcome.

[gcstomp]

i ask you to pass over that word but instead you only want to focus on it. i ask you to address any part of what else i said and you ignore that. ok, lets go there. in general, everyone taking a polygraph is stressed. an experienced administrator of test, like a retired fbi agent, addressing a single event, is something like 90 percent accurate. the reason polygraph is only admissible in court in 26 states if both parties consent is because it is relatively unreliable relative to hurdle required for a conviction in a court case.

an SC nomination does not require clearing such a hurdle. we can have a thread on accuracy, reliability, future use, and how polygraph fits within realm of science in another thread. or we can maybe not, and simply skip that part. but again, it was not a zero risk situation, for someone requesting fbi questioning. results of prior tests, if they happened, would come out.

[B-Fly]

Given the statutes of limitations I think this is ultimately about the Senate's advise and consent power on Supreme Court nominees and not about criminal prosecution. That said, I don't think we can reasonably expect an FBI or police investigation here. So it would have to be a Senate hearing on matters of fact that would impact their willingness to give the accused a lifetime seat on the US Supreme Court. Ultimately, she'll need to be willing to testify under oath in the Senate hearing. If she's not, as much as I understand her reluctance given the politics and given the death threats and doxing she's already been receiving, I understand. But I also think that the Senate will have to proceed with each Senator voting his/her conscience based on the totality of the information they have about the nominee.

[baldgriff]

If the premise is - Hey she said she would take a polygraph test - She must be telling the truth....

Well then there is zero risk for her. If she fails it gets chalked up to the test being flawed or something else - as it is only admissible in 26 states because of its inaccuracy.

However, this is not a zero risk situation for the person being accused in the middle of a hearing as to whether the last 30 years of what appears to be a good record and effective jurisprudence should be thrown in the shitter, because of something that may or may not have happened while he was stumbling drunk at the age of 17 (which is a minor).

Again - it is very well possible that something happened. Unfortunately - the way this has been handled, has political hit job all over it!

[B-Fly]

If the premise is - Hey she said she would take a polygraph test - She must be telling the truth....

Well then there is zero risk for her. If she fails it gets chalked up to the test being flawed or something else - as it is only admissible in 26 states because of its inaccuracy.

However, this is not a zero risk situation for the person being accused in the middle of a hearing as to whether the last 30 years of what appears to be a good record and effective jurisprudence should be thrown in the shitter, because of something that may or may not have happened while he was stumbling drunk at the age of 17 (which is a minor).

Again - it is very well possible that something happened. Unfortunately - the way this has been handled, has political hit job all over it!

Baldgriff, I agree that the time lapse is reasonable to consider here, but I absolutely hate the idea of excusing the conduct because the accused was 17 or because he was drunk. This conduct, if reasonably provable under a civil standard of proof, is sickening and violent and unacceptable and inexcusable, period. If you have enough evidence to believe that it more likely than not occurred, then I think that's more than enough reason to deny the man a 'yes' vote for lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. The open question for me is whether there's enough evidence to believe that it more likely than not occurred.

[baldgriff]

B-fly -
If something like this occurred in the 80's - the record of it would likely have been sealed as he was a minor. Why do we seal these records, or make them more difficult to get access to? Isnt it because we dont hold minors as accountable and those who are adults?

Please dont get me wrong - if something happened - it is horrible. But where do you draw the line? 17's not it apparently - because he is to close to 18?? is it 16, 15, 14?

Or is it the action being claimed that is the reason to not consider that he was a drunk minor. Being a drunk minor may very well have played a big part in what may have happened. What if both were drunk? It is possible that both were drunk, and neither remembers exactly what happened.

[chancellor]

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

Thanks. Though it’s pretty obvious. She’s a hard-left professor who took time and care in scrubbing her web tracks - some, unless she’s very tech savvy, could not have been done without help. To those on the hard left, this is war; of which truth is the first casualty. Heck, even Feinstein publicly acknowledged she had doubts about the veracity-which in political speak, meant she knew it was likely a flaming pile of crap; hence she saved it until the situation became desperate.

McConnell and Grassley need to put an end to this charade, and quickly.

And, for reference, Sohrab Ahmari ‘s Post opinion piece: https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/the-dr...talitarianism/

[nots]

Baldgriff, I agree that the time lapse is reasonable to consider here, but I absolutely hate the idea of excusing the conduct because the accused was 17 or because he was drunk. This conduct, if reasonably provable under a civil standard of proof, is sickening and violent and unacceptable and inexcusable, period. If you have enough evidence to believe that it more likely than not occurred, then I think that's more than enough reason to deny the man a 'yes' vote for lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. The open question for me is whether there's enough evidence to believe that it more likely than not occurred.

Doesn’t he already have a lifetime appointment at his current job? If we are too believe her, should he not also be removed from that job?

[chancellor]

Doesn’t he already have a lifetime appointment at his current job? If we are too believe her, should he not also be removed from that job?

Funny how Feinstein didn’t release something of this importance then, no? ‘Cause a rapist must be just fine for an appellate chair, I guess.