If the Kavanaugh accusations are true...

[Ringo84]

It applies for civil cases as well. The order is logical. First the accuser brings the charges. Then the accused answers them. How does the accused effectively answers charges without hearing them first? Because this isn't in a courtroom, we ought to run the hearing like a Soviet tribunal, where the accused is presumed guilty by reason of his even being there, or do we conduct it with some semblance of the rules of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence?



Petty, yet Ford's attorney is insisting on it. I don't think Ford really wants to testify. Saying so outright, however, would be tantamount to throwing in the towel and giving the confirmation process a green light, so she attaches conditions that are difficult to impossible for the Senate to meet. She acts as if by testifying she's doing the Judiciary Committee a favor...

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is eager to testify on Monday.



Not first hand. He doesn't know what she would say in her testimony which could differ significantly what he's heard from others.

If she didn't want to testify, she wouldn't be negotiating with the Senate Committee to do so. Republicans don't want her to testify is more like what's happening.
Ringo

 

[jardiniere]

(snip)That's the thing that I don't get about all the "boys will be boys", "It was 30 years ago" etc... crowd. If it is true, that alone should disqualify him from the Court because he showed a lack of integrity by refusing to acknowledge it.

Perhaps having integrity is bad if it prevents you from getting a seat on the Supreme Court.

Which strikes me as proof our society is getting more and more messed up. I would like my SC justices to have integrity. Seems like an eminently reasonable value to look for in a judge.

 

[Sistrin]

If she didn't want to testify, she wouldn't be negotiating with the Senate Committee to do so. Republicans don't want her to testify is more like what's happening.

And again you know this how?

 

[Hieronymus]

It's a smear and slander campaign, which they will lose.
Panic in the deep state.
They've got nothing.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If she didn't want to testify, she wouldn't be negotiating with the Senate Committee to do so. Republicans don't want her to testify is more like what's happening.

If she wanted to testify, she wouldn't be negotiating. She'd simply submit the required paperwork and go to Washington on Monday.

 

[redleghunter]

By now, it seems like Kavanaugh should know what the allegations are. There might be a few details he doesn't yet know, but if he's innocent he can lay out the exact proof that shows it and then leave her twisting in the wind.

When an accuser presents evidence all of it must be revealed as the accused has a right to defend themselves and address the accusations. That is why the accused goes first in our Western system of justice going back 2000 years (see Acts 22-24) for some historical perspective.

One other reason the accuser goes first is that in presenting and not withholding evidence there may be exculpatory information for the accused.

If we turn long standing tradition and not to mention law on its head and have the accused go first without full presentation and most importantly examination of the claim by a judicial body, then the accuser can then only present evidence in which is tailored to the presentation of the accused.

This would be more like Cardassian law instead of our American and Western jurisprudence.

 

[Ringo84]

If she wanted to testify, she wouldn't be negotiating.

Why not?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

When an accuser presents evidence all of it must be revealed as the accused has a right to defend themselves and address the accusations. That is why the accused goes first in our Western system of justice going back 2000 years (see Acts 22-24) for some historical perspective.

One other reason the accuser goes first is that in presenting and not withholding evidence there may be exculpatory information for the accused.

If we turn long standing tradition and not to mention law on its head and have the accused go first without full presentation and most importantly examination of the claim by a judicial body, then the accuser can then only present evidence in which is tailored to the presentation of the accused.

This would be more like Cardassian law instead of our American and Western jurisprudence.

As long as Ford doesn't have to be in the same room with Kavanaugh, as she requested, I'm fine with her letting him testify first if it will mean a fair hearing for both of them.
Ringo

 

[Hieronymus]

Come on, everyone knows this whole thing is a desperate attempt to thwart Kavanaugh becoming SCJ.

 

[redleghunter]

This isn't about trying Kavanaugh as a criminal (since the statute of limitations has expired), it's about making sure that individuals with no regard for women's bodies don't end up on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh is going to get the opportunity to explain his actions. That sounds fair enough to me.

It has everything to do with incriminating oneself. He will be testifying under oath and if he perjures then that can be taken to a federal criminal court or be used in articles of impeachment to remove him from the federal bench.

Therefore, if he goes first and says he did not attend that party and did not do what the accuser says he did and the accuser then proves the next day he was at the house that day, he could be charged for perjury.

Now notice what I wrote. He stated he was not at that party but evidence showed he was at the house that day. If the accused heard of this charge first he could defend the claim separately from the party as the reason he was at the house that day was to pick up his football gear he left in his friends moms minivan after practice.

The accuser must always present their case first so the judicial body can examine their claims. That’s the way it’s been done in our history minus some egregious cases such as witch trials, genocidal regimes and mob lynchings.

 

[redleghunter]

The joke is it doesn't matter.

I dont have an opinion on whether Anita Hill put herself through hell for a long con, even considering she has more against her than being a woman. She was an academic, so she knew what she would be faced with: clearly she thought that was important enough to pursue.

But, I also know nothing happens by coincidence, and most everything has a recognizably exploitable purpose.

She is a millionaire today.

 

[DaisyDay]

None of that is evidence. It definitely doesn't prove anything.

You're wrong that it is not evidence - it is. But you're right that it isn't proof - there is a difference between evidence and proof.

If this is how you come to judgments concerning the law and a person's life, please don't serve as a juror.

This isn't about law so much as it is about whether something happened and if so(this thread assumes the positive), how someone up for a lifelong appointment to the Supreme Court handles the allegation.

 

[Ringo84]

She is a millionaire today.

Oh phew...what a relief! I guess that invalidates her past accusations against Thomas, then! As everyone knows, a woman who accuses a powerful man of assault/harassment/rape must live an ascetic lifestyle, living off of bread and water and wearing sackcloth.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

And what about his rights?

Indeed. Regardless of the accusations or charges the accused has rights.

That’s been our way since the early Roman Empire.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Why not?

Because she's been offered a chance to testify, and she's turned it down. Her loss, nobody else's - except anti-Kavanaugh partisans...

 

[redleghunter]

Oh phew...what a relief! I guess that invalidates her past accusations against Thomas, then! As everyone knows, a woman who accuses a powerful man of assault/harassment/rape must live an ascetic lifestyle, living off of bread and water and wearing sackcloth.
Ringo

Which means if her claims were true she at least received compensation for pain and suffering.

 

[DaisyDay]

She is a millionaire today.

What evidence do you have of that?

 

[Ringo84]

Which means if her claims were true she at least received compensation for pain and suffering.

So....she shouldn't receive compensation for being harassed?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Because she's been offered a chance to testify, and she's turned it down. Her loss, nobody else's - except anti-Kavanaugh partisans...

But she hasn't turned it down. She has been preparing and asking for the ridiculously short deadline set by Senate Republicans to be extended. That's not a denial.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

What motive would Dr Ford have in contriving such a story...

There could be many reasons. But I doubt she wanted this to be public. I believe she thought her letter would be used discreetly within the halls of Senate committee hoping someone would convince a Rep senator or senators to withdraw support.