Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes on at 87

zeke4ahs

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 26, 2003
34,719
10,898
113
And for the record, I’m not pretending to know whether he was guilty or not. I thought she was a credible witness, as did everyone else, including Republicans who spoke out. But you should at least attempt to understand why a girl/ woman keeps quiet for years or forever about abuse and why often all details are wiped from her memory.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,712
2,760
113
“There rarely is solid evidence in sex abuse cases.” That was your post. Something you know SHIT about. Making a confidential record of the action would alleviate most of the issues that arise.
 
Last edited:

IUclover

Sophomore
Nov 19, 2015
985
732
93
I find it sad and not funny that a man’s life can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims by women. What’s more your post was just more nonsense. Prosecutors aggressively prosecute sex claims. Evidence is not hard to procure. At all. Keep filling your head with biased, woke, bubble bullshit. Fill out a PR. go to the ER. Call your doctor. Blah blah blah. Making a contemporaneous, confidential record is very easy to do. Honestly you must spend all day reading huff post articles and Alyssa Milano tweets.
Why would a woman, or man, not file a sexual abuse/rape/molestation claim? Do you think that happens?
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,712
2,760
113
Are there reasons why they would not report it or provide confidential evidence shortly after it happens or at all?
The question is about evidence. Not reasons. There’s also a sol. Our legislatures have weighed these reasons against the necessity to act - for myriad reasons, including men having to face claims that are 30 years old. Understand?
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
“There rarely is solid evidence in sex abuse cases.” That was your post. Something you know SHIT about. Making a confidential record of the action would alleviate most of the issues that arise.
You might have a point if you simply take issue with the word "rarely," but you know what Zeke is talking about is fairly common. A lot of times, even the men who are convicted are convicted on the basis of victim testimony, rather than any sort of physical evidence (see: Weinstein). I don't think you need to discard all of your opinions re: Kavanaugh in order to realize that Zeke has a point as to women who don't immediately come forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianiu

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,006
8,531
113
Typical.

I posted about what McConnell actually did, and you tried to come to McConnell's rescue by talking about what Feinstein and "energetic investigative reporters" could have done.
Typical what? I merely posted what should have happened. I don’t think it’s controversial.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,712
2,760
113
You might have a point if you simply take issue with the word "rarely," but you know what Zeke is talking about is fairly common. A lot of times, even the men who are convicted are convicted on the basis of victim testimony, rather than any sort of physical evidence (see: Weinstein). I don't think you need to discard all of your opinions re: Kavanaugh in order to realize that Zeke has a point as to women who don't immediately come forward.
Absolutely true. That said in comparison to other sols sexual assault are relatively short and part of that is predicated on the interests of avoiding dilatory behavior. And that’s a product of the legislatures and bar influence for a reason.
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,006
8,531
113
I’d be willing to bet you know some women who have been sexually assaulted. And you don’t even know it. My mind isn’t filled with anything except experiences of women who have been abused and kept quiet. The fact that you don’t even attempt to understand the how or the why is sad.
Sexual assault is a horrible and indefensible thing. Being falsely accused of that is also horrible and indefensible, isn’t it?
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,006
8,531
113
Her therapist said it was. She also passed a lie detector test. The FBI was limited in their investigation and never even got in touch with several people who said they had information. Wonder why that was?
I don’t think so. Link it.
 

Hoopsdoc1978

Senior
Apr 13, 2016
2,557
1,693
113
Typical.

I posted about what McConnell actually did, and you tried to come to McConnell's rescue by talking about what Feinstein and "energetic investigative reporters" could have done.
This is ironic since your original post weighed so heavily on what Kavanaugh “might have done” as a “partying priveleged preppy”. If those evil pubs hadn’t stood in the way, we may have found out.

Never mind that his confirmation would have created a gold mine of awful publicity for republicans if any of this stuff was ever substantiated. It wasn’t. Because there was nothing there.

You guys need to own what the Democrats tried to do to Kavanaugh, what you cheered on and what you lament the failure of even today.

It was bullshit then, it’s bullshit now, and that you’re still crying about it says a lot about you.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
Aloha there were many who claimed to have salient info that the fbi didn’t interview. But that’s the point. Determining reliability thirty years after the fact is beyond silly, and why the sol of these claims can be as short as two years.
What is and is not relevant in a criminal inquiry is not the same as what is and is not relevant for a SCOTUS nomination - and it shouldn't be.

Everyone has a right to due process. No one has a right to be a Supreme Court justice. Different contexts, different rules.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,712
2,760
113
What is and is not relevant in a criminal inquiry is not the same as what is and is not relevant for a SCOTUS nomination - and it shouldn't be.

Everyone has a right to due process. No one has a right to be a Supreme Court justice. Different contexts, different rules.
Not talking about relevance. Talking about Credibility and reliability of evidence being the same and how both tarnish over time
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
Credibility and reliability of evidence is the same as it relates to being tarnished over time
Yes, but how to apply said credibility and reliability to the context at hand is not. If someone is accused of being a thief, but the evidence is lacking, you don't send him to prison. But you also might decide not to hire him to run your personal finances.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, I never formed an opinion on whether or not he actually did the things he was accused of. I simply don't know. But I did form the opinion that the Repubs could have found someone better for the seat. Kavanaugh clearly had an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, a drinking problem, and a very tenuous grasp on the concept of honesty. I'm sure there was at least one other person on the Federalist Society list they shoved in Trump's pocket that didn't have that baggage.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,712
2,760
113
Yes, but how to apply said credibility and reliability to the context at hand is not. If someone is accused of being a thief, but the evidence is lacking, you don't send him to prison. But you also might decide not to hire him to run your personal finances.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, I never formed an opinion on whether or not he actually did the things he was accused of. I simply don't know. But I did form the opinion that the Repubs could have found someone better for the seat. Kavanaugh clearly had an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, a drinking problem, and a very tenuous grasp on the concept of honesty. I'm sure there was at least one other person on the Federalist Society list they shoved in Trump's pocket that didn't have that baggage.
I agree with you completely on the profile that emerged of him. As to your thief analogy I would hope we don’t devolve to judging someone where evidence is lacking. I kind of think that’s the entire point. It’s easy to make stuff up - for political reasons, personal animus, whatever, and why someone shouldn’t be punished by going to prison or not getting hired without reliable evidence.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
I agree with you completely on the profile that emerged of him. As to your thief analogy I would hope we don’t devolve to judging someone where evidence is lacking. I kind of think that’s the entire point. It’s easy to make stuff up - for political reasons, personal animus, whatever, and why someone shouldn’t be punished by going to prison or getting hired without reliable evidence.
I agree about not judging people. But I do think we can be...let's say "overly cautious" when it comes to such important appointments. Like, I feel like the Senate should have said to Kavanaugh, "Look, man, we aren't judging you. You could be a great guy. We don't even necessarily believe any of this crap. But this is SCOTUS we are talking about, so we can't take any chances. Sorry for your luck, but that's just the way it is in this kind of situation."
 

sglowrider

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 9, 2012
19,745
14,355
113
Tiny Red Dot
I agree about not judging people. But I do think we can be...let's say "overly cautious" when it comes to such important appointments. Like, I feel like the Senate should have said to Kavanaugh, "Look, man, we aren't judging you. You could be a great guy. We don't even necessarily believe any of this crap. But this is SCOTUS we are talking about, so we can't take any chances. Sorry for your luck, but that's just the way it is in this kind of situation."
You mean silently judging him?

 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,423
6,348
113
Yes, but how to apply said credibility and reliability to the context at hand is not. If someone is accused of being a thief, but the evidence is lacking, you don't send him to prison. But you also might decide not to hire him to run your personal finances.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, I never formed an opinion on whether or not he actually did the things he was accused of. I simply don't know. But I did form the opinion that the Repubs could have found someone better for the seat. Kavanaugh clearly had an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, a drinking problem, and a very tenuous grasp on the concept of honesty. I'm sure there was at least one other person on the Federalist Society list they shoved in Trump's pocket that didn't have that baggage.
There is only a single reason the accusations had traction and that reason has nothing to do with witness credibility: Kavanaugh was on the Federalist Society list.

Tara Reade understands what credible evidence means—and it has nothing to do with credibility or evidence.
 

Mas-sa-suta

All-American
Oct 23, 2003
6,898
500
113
These incumbents are going to look at the polls and see if they will win or lose suburban voters. If they lose suburban voters, a confirmation will not happen before the election. Peter's just happened to be in the list from last night's polling so appears below.

StateDemocratD %RepublicanR %StartEndPollster
ArizonaMark Kelly50%Martha McSally*42%Sep 10Sep 15Siena Coll.
ArizonaMark Kelly52%Martha McSally*35%Sep 12Sep 16Redfield and Wilton Strategies
MaineSara Gideon49%Susan Collins*44%Sep 11Sep 16Siena Coll.
MichiganGary Peters*45%John James41%Sep 10Sep 15EPIC-MRA
MichiganGary Peters*51%John James35%Sep 12Sep 14Redfield and Wilton Strategies
North CarolinaCal Cunningham42%Thom Tillis*37%Sep 11Sep 16Siena Coll.
North CarolinaCal Cunningham49%Thom Tillis*38%Sep 12Sep 15Redfield and Wilton
Quite entertaining to read that Republicans will allow faked polls using Pub samples at 14 % to determine their election strategy.
Some times one must simply smile and gently shake your head.
Did you learn nothing last time?
 

Mas-sa-suta

All-American
Oct 23, 2003
6,898
500
113
I find it sad and not funny that a man’s life can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims by women. What’s more your post was just more nonsense. Prosecutors aggressively prosecute sex claims. Evidence is not hard to procure. At all. Keep filling your head with biased, woke, bubble bullshit. Fill out a PR. go to the ER. Call your doctor. Blah blah blah. Making a contemporaneous, confidential record is very easy to do. Honestly you must spend all day reading huff post articles and Alyssa Milano tweets.
The head you refer to is likely full.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
27,405
10,464
113
Quite entertaining to read that Republicans will allow faked polls using Pub samples at 14 % to determine their election strategy.
Some times one must simply smile and gently shake your head.
Did you learn nothing last time?
Hey genius, you think these Senators do internal polls like that?
 

twenty02

Hall of Famer
Jan 28, 2011
16,663
15,223
113
Quite entertaining to read that Republicans will allow faked polls using Pub samples at 14 % to determine their election strategy.
Some times one must simply smile and gently shake your head.
Did you learn nothing last time?
Maybe you should do a reboot of unskewedpolls.com, since you are such a smart guy.
 

Fro

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
14,223
1,892
113
RIP RBG

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we need court reform badly when someone who wins 46% of the vote nationally gets to appoint 3 justices and neither party is going to support nominees outside of a handful of people.

Process is way too politicized at this point (with McConnell & Reid both bearing blame), so we're going to either end up with 100 justices on the court or only appointments being filled when the President's party controls the Senate.

There is only a single reason the accusations had traction and that reason has nothing to do with witness credibility: Kavanaugh was on the Federalist Society list.

Tara Reade understands what credible evidence means—and it has nothing to do with credibility or evidence.
Reade like Kavanaugh lied under oath, repeatedly, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,100
3,317
113
What about her? Her story fell apart in 25 minutes. But really good attempt.
Mmhmm...something with you defense of Blasey-Ford and your tear down of Ms. Reade does not seem to mesh. You want to talk about stories falling apart, Blasey-Ford was the poster child for that.

But Kavanaugh had an R after his name and Biden has a D...so there is that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,100
3,317
113
RIP RBG

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we need court reform badly when someone who wins 46% of the vote nationally gets to appoint 3 justices and neither party is going to support nominees outside of a handful of people.

Process is way too politicized at this point (with McConnell & Reid both bearing blame), so we're going to either end up with 100 justices on the court or only appointments being filled when the President's party controls the Senate.



Reade like Kavanaugh lied under oath, repeatedly, lol.
So did Blasey-Ford......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,046
3,972
113
RIP RBG

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we need court reform badly when someone who wins 46% of the vote nationally gets to appoint 3 justices and neither party is going to support nominees outside of a handful of people.

Process is way too politicized at this point (with McConnell & Reid both bearing blame), so we're going to either end up with 100 justices on the court or only appointments being filled when the President's party controls the Senate.



Reade like Kavanaugh lied under oath, repeatedly, lol.
Chris Truax, a spokesman for REPUBLICANS for the Rule of Law lays out a pretty succinct argument for why the GOP really has nothing to gain from trying to rush thru an appointee to appease Trump. Start with the fact that there are only 13 working days left for the Senate, and adding to that number is just going to take away from any campaigning days extremely vulnerable GOP incumbents just can not afford to give up...

So say Trump names a potential nominee this weekend, which is current speculation. That means a process that on average takes about 70 days is now reduced to essentially the month of Oct, with the vote on Nov 3. When you're trailing, giving up campaigning in the month of Oct is basically political suicide.

And if Mark Kelly beats McSally in a race he leads consistently by double digits in AZ, he could be seated as early as Nov 30, because that is a special election to fill McCain's seat. That means even after the election the GOP would not be able to push it thru without Collins, Murkowski and Romney all voting yes- a very unlikely scenario...

Truax argues that the attempt would backfire spectacularly...

"But even if Senate Republicans were to manage to vote on a nomination before Nov. 3, retribution would be swift, predictable and dire should Democrats seize control of both the Senate and the presidency. Here's the likely scenario.

On the first day of the new Congress, the Senate would amend its rules to eliminate the legislative filibuster. The size of the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t set by the Constitution, it’s set by statute, albeit a very long-lived statute that was last amended in 1869. So on the second day of the new Congress, a bill would be introduced to amend 28 USC 1 and increase the size of the court from nine to 15."

"I want to emphasize that these are not gauzy hypotheticals. If Republicans force a nominee from President Donald Trump onto the Supreme Court and Democrats win control of Congress and the presidency, the events I have described are the political equivalent of the physical law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There is simply no way congressional Democrats are going to smile ruefully at their Republican colleagues and let bygones be bygones. There will be retribution, and that retribution will be expressly calculated to teach Republicans the meaning of powerlessness. It won’t be pretty to watch. It won’t be good for the country. But it will happen, nonetheless."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/filling-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-supreme-110017194.html

Even the SCOTUS reporter for that liberal rag (the WSJ) pointed out the scorched earth policy that ramming thru a nominee in a lame-duck session would have- on Fox no less...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/extremely-unlikely-scotus-justice-could-221608706.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,712
2,760
113
Really? When?
Below is a good take on credibility/reliability and decades old memory evidence.

Christine Blasey Ford is no poster child for women's rights: A female attorney's perspective
In the rush to judgment, activists ignore inconsistencies and omissions in the tale told by Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. Do they care about the truth?
I want to believe — need to believe — that people are not as simple-minded and generalizing as the news media have portrayed. That logic and reason still matter. That it is obvious to others that the Brett Kavanaugh versus Christine Blasey Ford construct is a terrible study for real issues with sexual violence in this country.

If this is the debate, then understand that Ford is a terrible poster child for the cause. Does the cause exist? Of course. Do terrible things happen to innocent people every day? Of course. Does engaging in a critical analysis of a claim of sexual assault mean you are an anti-woman, pro-rapist nut case? Based on today's narrative, this answer isn’t so clear.

I am perplexed. But as an American, an attorney and a woman, I am also disappointed. I have continuously heard the argument that if we don’t “believe” Ford, we somehow don’t “believe” that women are sexually assaulted or that women don't matter.

Is this seriously the argument being perpetrated in the name of women’s rights? It’s ridiculous, illogical and dismissive. And — most significant — does nothing to advance a real discussion of sexual assault. The time I have spent with victims on both sides of this issue, be it those who were sexually assaulted or falsely accused (Yes, that’s a real thing with real research supporting it!), are the times that have shaped me as a lawyer, and as a human.

Christine Blasey Ford's unanswered questions
I say this not as a former special victims’ prosecutor or victims’ rights attorney or even as a criminal defense attorney. I say this as a matter of common sense and logic. I understand that my perspective is different than most after a decade of analyzing sexual assault claims to determine prosecutorial merit or avenues to acquittal. But our job as attorneys isn’t really any different from what all Americans are engaged in (or should be) with Kavanaugh: an objective analysis of the facts to determine their merit and draw a reasoned conclusion

It’s the same thing that many of those who called for an FBI investigation are hoping for. Though, as then-Sen. Joe Biden aptly pointed out in 1991, the FBI is not a magical agency that can determine the truth of decades-old allegations by collecting witness statements.

In the world of sexual assault claims, Ford's is pretty flimsy. What day, month or even year did it happen? Where? How did she get there and back? She admittedly didn’t walk several miles home, so who was driving? Did she call her parents? Speaking of her parents, why are they notably absent from any involvement in this? Do they think she’s lying? Did they abuse her themselves? Why do the witnesses Ford named claim no memory of this gathering?

I could go on, but I won’t. Is there a response to each of these items? Sure. Is it compelling? Not particularly in a legal sense. Does it mean Ford is lying? No, but does it mean that Kavanaugh is guilty? I would think not.

Sadly, though, no matter how logical or legitimate these questions are, many people will disregard them because they can’t fathom how a person would lie about sexual assault if it weren't true. As if it were that simple. As if the answers to these questions don’t matter for Ford, for Kavanaugh, for the sake of determining the truth.

Simply because someone says something happened — even if they are “100 percent" certain — it does not mean that it actually did.

In fact, research confirms that one’s confidence in one's memory is actually a poor indicator of the reliability of memory. That’s to say nothing of those who deliberately lie, exaggerate or conflate experiences for any known or unknown reason, political or personal, conscious or otherwise. Is Ford afflicted by any of these phenomena? Who’s to say? Another aspect of this case to look into.

Time presents a problem to the credibility of any delayed report. Merely delaying reporting the alleged assault does not mean it is untrue, but it certainly makes it more difficult to find corroborating evidence. But time doesn’t kill all cases. Sometimes, there are prior consistent statements from the accuser, or the accuser has a better memory. In other cases, the perpetrator might confess.

It is not offensive to discuss possibilities that exist in a case, and debate whether evidence supports the assertions under any standard of proof. We should talk about how mental health and past sexual conduct are totally excluded from this discussion, but are often factors that play into the question of an accuser’s credibility.

Do any of us know the first thing about Ford’s mental health or sexual history? Of course not, but it doesn't seem to matter for those forging ahead with her as their champion.

Our rush to judgment obscures the truth
Extremism is the opposite of intellectual discourse. I can’t respect the absolutes that have been established in this debate: If you don't believe Ford, you don't believe victims; if you testify with apparent vulnerability, you speak only truth; if you believe in false allegations, you’re a misogynist.

It is a display of hysteria to rally around Ford — ignoring the inconsistencies and omissions in her tale — as the poster child of women’s rights.

I am disappointed in the rush to judgment. I am disappointed in the partisan nature of the debate, in the complete abandonment of civil rights when it comes to a so-called privileged, white male. It does not matter who his parents are, where he went to school, what his successes have been, how much money he has, or the office for which he has been nominated. It’s despite these things that he is entitled to the same amount of due process and respect as anyone else.

While our Constitution presumes him innocent, our nation does not.

Catherine Cherkasky is a veteran, former JAG/special victims prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney who specializes in military sexual assault defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

Lucy01

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2014
7,966
3,063
113
RIP RBG

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we need court reform badly when someone who wins 46% of the vote nationally gets to appoint 3 justices and neither party is going to support nominees outside of a handful of people.

Process is way too politicized at this point (with McConnell & Reid both bearing blame), so we're going to either end up with 100 justices on the court or only appointments being filled when the President's party controls the Senate.



Reade like Kavanaugh lied under oath, repeatedly, lol.
No you’re the one spreading lies!
Only biased idiots believe you!
 

Spartans9312

Junior
Nov 11, 2004
1,272
637
113
In a poll conducted over the weekend by Reuters and Ipsos, 62 percent of respondents said that picking a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ginsburg should be left to whoever wins the presidential election in November.
This was the position of around 50 percent of the Republicans polled and 80 percent of the Democrats.
 

Lucy01

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2014
7,966
3,063
113
In a poll conducted over the weekend by Reuters and Ipsos, 62 percent of respondents said that picking a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ginsburg should be left to whoever wins the presidential election in November.
This was the position of around 50 percent of the Republicans polled and 80 percent of the Democrats.
Not going to happen! Ol Trumpy Bear will nominate one by Monday of next week!
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,046
3,972
113
Mmhmm...something with you defense of Blasey-Ford and your tear down of Ms. Reade does not seem to mesh. You want to talk about stories falling apart, Blasey-Ford was the poster child for that.

But Kavanaugh had an R after his name and Biden has a D...so there is that.
Why do you continue to make irrelevant comparisons between Tara Reade and Ford? The RELEVANT comparison for Reade is E Jean Carroll- they even say the "sexual assault (Reade)
and Rape (Carroll) occurred in the same year involving the men vying for the 2020 election of POTUS.

Ford's case involved a lifetime appointment that is based on the fact that we supposedly want people of good character sitting on the SCOTUS bench. Trump and Biden are vying for a 4 yr role which the public will decide, not legislators tasked with determining
a potential nominees moral turpitude.

Make a relevant comparison- like the way Carroll immediately reported the incident to two friends who urged her to keep silent and protect herself. Or the way she has not backed down and has even filed suit to obtain a DNA sample from Trump to match to a stain on the dress she was wearing, ala Lewinsky. Trump has defamed her and claimed he doesn't know her, yet for some reason, he refuses to give up the DNA sample and even involved Barr in his shenanigans.

And what tomfoolery that is. Involving the Justice Dept to protect Trump for actions he committed as POTUS (defaming/lying about Carroll) when the real crime he's afraid of is the brutal rape he committed. Carroll has always said Trump RAPED her. Reade said in 2019 that she didn't feel Biden committed "sexual assault", but then after Biden emerged as the Dem frontrunner in 2020 she suddenly changed her story and reversed what she had earlier said?

Make relevant comparisons- between the 2 men running for POTUS and their accusers in 2020, not a SCOTUS confirmation hearing that was essentially already litigated by the public in the 2018 midterms. Of course with Trump, that means you have nearly two dozen other accusations to include as well...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,046
3,972
113
In a poll conducted over the weekend by Reuters and Ipsos, 62 percent of respondents said that picking a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ginsburg should be left to whoever wins the presidential election in November.
This was the position of around 50 percent of the Republicans polled and 80 percent of the Democrats.
Judge Nap said on Fox this weekend that polling on the issue would be key. You're asking GOP Senators who are already trailing in places like CO, AZ, Iowa, ME etc... to give up campaign time, buck the public polling and try to push thru a nominee that will essentially be nullified by the changes the Dems will make following the election?

I predict this Trump/McConnell ploy will go the way of the Charlotte open RNC Convention Trump insisted on for months. Down the drain...
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
Below is a good take on credibility/reliability and decades old memory evidence.

Christine Blasey Ford is no poster child for women's rights: A female attorney's perspective
In the rush to judgment, activists ignore inconsistencies and omissions in the tale told by Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. Do they care about the truth?
I want to believe — need to believe — that people are not as simple-minded and generalizing as the news media have portrayed. That logic and reason still matter. That it is obvious to others that the Brett Kavanaugh versus Christine Blasey Ford construct is a terrible study for real issues with sexual violence in this country.

If this is the debate, then understand that Ford is a terrible poster child for the cause. Does the cause exist? Of course. Do terrible things happen to innocent people every day? Of course. Does engaging in a critical analysis of a claim of sexual assault mean you are an anti-woman, pro-rapist nut case? Based on today's narrative, this answer isn’t so clear.

I am perplexed. But as an American, an attorney and a woman, I am also disappointed. I have continuously heard the argument that if we don’t “believe” Ford, we somehow don’t “believe” that women are sexually assaulted or that women don't matter.

Is this seriously the argument being perpetrated in the name of women’s rights? It’s ridiculous, illogical and dismissive. And — most significant — does nothing to advance a real discussion of sexual assault. The time I have spent with victims on both sides of this issue, be it those who were sexually assaulted or falsely accused (Yes, that’s a real thing with real research supporting it!), are the times that have shaped me as a lawyer, and as a human.

Christine Blasey Ford's unanswered questions
I say this not as a former special victims’ prosecutor or victims’ rights attorney or even as a criminal defense attorney. I say this as a matter of common sense and logic. I understand that my perspective is different than most after a decade of analyzing sexual assault claims to determine prosecutorial merit or avenues to acquittal. But our job as attorneys isn’t really any different from what all Americans are engaged in (or should be) with Kavanaugh: an objective analysis of the facts to determine their merit and draw a reasoned conclusion

It’s the same thing that many of those who called for an FBI investigation are hoping for. Though, as then-Sen. Joe Biden aptly pointed out in 1991, the FBI is not a magical agency that can determine the truth of decades-old allegations by collecting witness statements.

In the world of sexual assault claims, Ford's is pretty flimsy. What day, month or even year did it happen? Where? How did she get there and back? She admittedly didn’t walk several miles home, so who was driving? Did she call her parents? Speaking of her parents, why are they notably absent from any involvement in this? Do they think she’s lying? Did they abuse her themselves? Why do the witnesses Ford named claim no memory of this gathering?

I could go on, but I won’t. Is there a response to each of these items? Sure. Is it compelling? Not particularly in a legal sense. Does it mean Ford is lying? No, but does it mean that Kavanaugh is guilty? I would think not.

Sadly, though, no matter how logical or legitimate these questions are, many people will disregard them because they can’t fathom how a person would lie about sexual assault if it weren't true. As if it were that simple. As if the answers to these questions don’t matter for Ford, for Kavanaugh, for the sake of determining the truth.

Simply because someone says something happened — even if they are “100 percent" certain — it does not mean that it actually did.

In fact, research confirms that one’s confidence in one's memory is actually a poor indicator of the reliability of memory. That’s to say nothing of those who deliberately lie, exaggerate or conflate experiences for any known or unknown reason, political or personal, conscious or otherwise. Is Ford afflicted by any of these phenomena? Who’s to say? Another aspect of this case to look into.

Time presents a problem to the credibility of any delayed report. Merely delaying reporting the alleged assault does not mean it is untrue, but it certainly makes it more difficult to find corroborating evidence. But time doesn’t kill all cases. Sometimes, there are prior consistent statements from the accuser, or the accuser has a better memory. In other cases, the perpetrator might confess.

It is not offensive to discuss possibilities that exist in a case, and debate whether evidence supports the assertions under any standard of proof. We should talk about how mental health and past sexual conduct are totally excluded from this discussion, but are often factors that play into the question of an accuser’s credibility.

Do any of us know the first thing about Ford’s mental health or sexual history? Of course not, but it doesn't seem to matter for those forging ahead with her as their champion.

Our rush to judgment obscures the truth
Extremism is the opposite of intellectual discourse. I can’t respect the absolutes that have been established in this debate: If you don't believe Ford, you don't believe victims; if you testify with apparent vulnerability, you speak only truth; if you believe in false allegations, you’re a misogynist.

It is a display of hysteria to rally around Ford — ignoring the inconsistencies and omissions in her tale — as the poster child of women’s rights.

I am disappointed in the rush to judgment. I am disappointed in the partisan nature of the debate, in the complete abandonment of civil rights when it comes to a so-called privileged, white male. It does not matter who his parents are, where he went to school, what his successes have been, how much money he has, or the office for which he has been nominated. It’s despite these things that he is entitled to the same amount of due process and respect as anyone else.

While our Constitution presumes him innocent, our nation does not.

Catherine Cherkasky is a veteran, former JAG/special victims prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney who specializes in military sexual assault defense.
None of that backs up an accusation of perjury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe