Supreme Court of the United States

[nots]

How about the 2nd case where he whipped his member out and forced it into the face of a girl at a party when he was 21? For this one, Ronan Farrow found a corroborating witness who told the same exact story the victim told, and said he was thinking about the incident a lot recently. Because it happened.

Journalists found the 2nd accuser because they heard about the rumour, then found both the victim and at least 1 corroborating witness.

Your conspiracy theories cannot escape the realities of this case.

The second story is far less credible than the first....far, far less.

[B-Fly]

It's so hard because this "case" is being tried in the court of public opinion. The accuser has alleged that something happened to her while both of them were minors - and he apparently was a fall down drunk. So he has really no way to defend himself from this accusation. Once the allegation was made - quite simply much of the media coverage went straight to "how can he be fit". He was guilty before he ever had a chance to even know who it was that was making an allegation or even what the allegation was.

One should be assumed "innocent until proven otherwise". Whether he get appointed or not - this was a political hit job. At least with Clarence Thomas we got to hear that he was placing pubic hairs on pop cans.... Here we have "He was drunk" "I dont know where it happened" and others that "were there" saying either "they werent there" or it "didnt happen".

I will agree that something may have happened 30+ years ago but:
- there isnt enough evidence
- its past the statute of limitations

This wouldnt fly in a court of law. The mere notion that something "may" have happened - is not sufficient enough "evidence" to continue dragging this on an on.

So to your post - The accuser has been granted more dignity and sensitivity than our courts of law would provide. The accused on the other hand has been judged guilty by who knows what percentage of the country - guilty meaning "unfit to serve" - when our legal system wouldnt even sniff this shit because there is NO EVIDENCE with a hashtag #METOO behind it.

Any investigation done at this point isnt going to clear anyone - its just a way for the Dems to have the FBI canvass the nation looking for another possible something.

Its a political hit job - no matter how you slice it.

It's a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. There are no rules around evidence or burdens of proof or statutes of limitation. There are 100 Senators asked to do their best to make a decision on the nominee's qualifications and fitness for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Nothing prohibits them from voting 'yes' or 'no' based on wild guesses about how a nominee might rule on a hypothetical future case. Nothing prohibits them from voting 'yes' or 'no' based on the nominee's reputation for candor and good character. In this case, however, there's a chance to address something that they're already allowed to consider in a way that allows them to more thoughtfully consider testimony and credibility, and they can absolutely weigh the timing and possible political/ideological motivations of the witnesses. But they should hear the accuser(s) and the accused testify under oath, they should listen respectfully and with an open mind, and then they should vote their conscience, not their calculated political self-interest. Will that happen? Probably not. But I can still say and believe that it's what should happen, and that there's no reason why it can't happen by mid-October to allow a vote to be called before the election.

[nots]

It's a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. There are no rules around evidence or burdens of proof or statutes of limitation. There are 100 Senators asked to do their best to make a decision on the nominee's qualifications and fitness for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Nothing prohibits them from voting 'yes' or 'no' based on wild guesses about how a nominee might rule on a hypothetical future case. Nothing prohibits them from voting 'yes' or 'no' based on the nominee's reputation for candor and good character. In this case, however, there's a chance to address something that they're already allowed to consider in a way that allows them to more thoughtfully consider testimony and credibility, and they can absolutely weigh the timing and possible political/ideological motivations of the witnesses. But they should hear the accuser(s) and the accused testify under oath, they should listen respectfully and with an open mind, and then they should vote their conscience, not their calculated political self-interest. Will that happen? Probably not. But I can still say and believe that it's what should happen, and that there's no reason why it can't happen by mid-October to allow a vote to be called before the election.

I think it would be more accurate to say that there are 100 Senators that make there decisions based on what team they play for.

[baldgriff]

It's a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. There are no rules around evidence or burdens of proof or statutes of limitation. There are 100 Senators asked to do their best to make a decision on the nominee's qualifications and fitness for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Nothing prohibits them from voting 'yes' or 'no' based on wild guesses about how a nominee might rule on a hypothetical future case. Nothing prohibits them from voting 'yes' or 'no' based on the nominee's reputation for candor and good character. In this case, however, there's a chance to address something that they're already allowed to consider in a way that allows them to more thoughtfully consider testimony and credibility, and they can absolutely weigh the timing and possible political/ideological motivations of the witnesses. But they should hear the accuser(s) and the accused testify under oath, they should listen respectfully and with an open mind, and then they should vote their conscience, not their calculated political self-interest. Will that happen? Probably not. But I can still say and believe that it's what should happen, and that there's no reason why it can't happen by mid-October to allow a vote to be called before the election.

However, now that this has been tried in the court of public opinion - it is likely that the constituency of said 100 Senator are blowing up the phones with their concerns regarding this SCOTUS candidate and that because he did this thing some 30+ years ago...............

I get it is a confirmation hearing. I get that there arent any rules of evidence required related to this. It just seems odd that any person looking to become a member of the SCOTUS has to be subjected to accusations that would not likely be permitted or even heard in the court he will be overseeing.

Its a damned political hit job.

[senorsheep]

I think it's decent to hold a hearing that ends by mid-October at the latest, and that treats both Dr. Ford's allegation and Judge Kavanaugh's denial with dignity and respect. We can't control the talking heads or the internet chatter. The Senate should model dignity and compromise and decency.

A hearing that ends by mid-October is a good start. If the Dems would also guarantee a pre-election confirmation vote - barring disqualifying information coming to light during the hearing, of course - then I would support their call for investigations and an extended hearing.

I wish I could believe that Democrats are acting in good faith, and in the best interests of the accusers. As of now, I don't.

[Teenwolf]

How about the 1st case, the accuser placed 2 perpetrators in the room at the time. If shes making up the story, why on earth would she name a 2nd person who was in the room at the time? It only makes her story easier to disprove. Do you think she was reading Judge's books years later, and said to herself "aha! He was a blackout drunk, perfect pawn for my plan!"... before she told her therapist about the incident? Then she used that story from her therapy sessions 6 years ago to complete her plan? That's a devastating long game she's got!

You really have to make a lot of leaps of faith to believe these are entirely fictional stories.

[Teenwolf]

The second story is far less credible than the first....far, far less.

Please provide evidence, or even a theory. Your statement is useless without backing.

Please tell me how the circumstantial evidence is against the claimant, who's story has been repeated by a credible witness?

[nots]

Please provide evidence, or even a theory. Your statement is useless without backing.

Please tell me how the circumstantial evidence is against the claimant, who's story has been repeated by a credible witness?

There is no one that has backed the 2nd accuser’s story.
She admits to having faulty memory and was unsure if it was even Kavanaugh.
It took her 6 days with a pro-Democratic lawyer to ‘remember’.
Neither the NYT or WaPo, hardly bastions of conservatism, could not confirm her story, so chose not report it only reporting on the New Yorker article.
Ronan Farrow himself said she was reluctant and unsure of herself.
But the biggest clue is that Senate Republicans want her to testify on Thursday because her story is so weak, that it will weaken Dr. Ford’s story by association. No way on earth they would want her talking unless they knew it was going to go their way
Now, what evidence do you have that she is a reliable accuser?

[OaklandA's]

There is no one that has backed the 2nd accuser’s story.

The story did not start with Ramirez. Yale alumni have been e-mailing each other about the incident since July, well before Ford came forward. The New Yorker writers saw those email discussions, and then tracked down Ramirez. There are plenty of Kavanaugh's former classmates at Yale who had heard about the incident.

[nots]

The story did not start with Ramirez. Yale alumni have been e-mailing each other about the incident since July, well before Ford came forward. The New Yorker writers saw those email discussions, and then tracked down Ramirez. There are plenty of Kavanaugh's former classmates at Yale who had heard about the incident.

Plenty of classmates? Then Why wasn’t the NYT or WaPo able to corroborate her story as it appears in the New Yorker?

[OaklandA's]

Then Why wasn’t the NYT or WaPo able to corroborate her story as it appears in the New Yorker?

The NYT did not publish the story because Ramirez was speaking exclusively with Mayer and Farrow at the New Yorker. See the quote from Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times here: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/statu...53191506931713

[Sour Masher]

The NYT did not publish the story because Ramirez was speaking exclusively with Mayer and Farrow at the New Yorker. See the quote from Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times here: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/statu...53191506931713

Mad props OaklandA's for always bringing the facts that some of us (me) are sometimes too lazy to find! Much appreciated.

[Teenwolf]

The NYT did not publish the story because Ramirez was speaking exclusively with Mayer and Farrow at the New Yorker. See the quote from Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times here: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/statu...53191506931713

Great work, thanks for the added details here!

[Teenwolf]

I would also say that Ramirez's admission that she was drunk, and not entirely sure of the details... that speaks in favor of her credibility. If she was making it up, why the hell would she admit she was drunk? Now, I admit that she needs corroborating witnesses to validate her recollection. I'm unsure if corroborating witnesses exist. Nots says there's no witness, but the news report I watched said there was one, so I cant be certain.

The 2nd part to that is, of course she was drunk, as it was part of their admitted culture to get women sloshed with their 'jungle juice' in order to take advantage of them. It's quite well documented, as noted in the controversy over the 14 yearbooks with "Renate Alumnus" in them, signifying their conquest over one girl... its demeaning, and you could say these details dont constitute crimes. But they certainly convey a culture wherein objectifying and taking advantage of women was viewed as normal... it was the early 80's. Just watch all the Porkie's movies, then come back here and tell me this was completely out of line with either the standard mysoginist practices glorified by the culture of the time, nor was it out of line with the type of entitled mysoginist culture described by classmates, and observable through the yearbooks and other stories/evidence.

[Judge Jude]

The NYT did not publish the story because Ramirez was speaking exclusively with Mayer and Farrow at the New Yorker. See the quote from Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times here: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/statu...53191506931713

geesh, the partisanship in here is amazing:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ugh-story.html

when the New York Times addressed the allegations in a story about Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle, it didn’t exactly allay those concerns with this passage:

"The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."

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

that's why they didn't publish anything - it's called journalism. there is no universe where a rival just surrenders because they know that they can't get to the central figure. some of the best journalism ever published would go unpublished by your mythical standard.

I'm still waiting to see how this all shakes out - but apparently that's too long a wait for many.

can anybody put the pom poms down even for a minute?
do you guys selectively edit - or do your feeds just ignore the 'wrong' stuff?

.......

updating for fairness, from NYT:

"Many cited a Times article that said The Times had conducted numerous interviews but was unable to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story. But The Times did not rebut her account and, unlike The New Yorker, was not able to obtain an interview with Ms. Ramirez."

still, they didn't publish because they couldn't find any corroboration (nor could the Washington Post and others).

if you are strongly behind Dr. Ford - which I can appreciate - I would be VERY leery of tying Ramirez to her like an anchor. she might take both down with the ship, unfortunately for everyone.