demagogue on 10/10/2018 at 09:38
He hasn't been found not guilty, fuck that. A jury would decide not guilty after a 3 month trial. The FBI did a fig leaf investigation and the Senate took it as a dismissal. Edit: That doesn't mean he was found guilty either; a jury would decide that too. There's not evidence based only on what was gathered so far to get a grand jury to issue an arrest warrant, if you want to put it that way. Which is to say you should put it that way. That's fine. (As I said above, it shouldn't be the allegation that disqualifies him anyway, but the highly partisan character of his response.)
Speaking just on the evidence, though, Ford stated 3 of the 5 names on Kav's July 1 calendar entry, including her boyfriend at the time, by name, by 30 year memory, near the clubhouse/Timmy's, on a weekday/swim day, explicitly for beer, long before she was able to see the calendar. Tell me the odds of somebody making that up by chance? That's predicting at least 6 items in a calendar entry blind.
uncadonego on 10/10/2018 at 10:35
Good point.
Draxil on 10/10/2018 at 15:13
Quote:
Speaking just on the evidence, though, Ford stated 3 of the 5 names on Kav's July 1 calendar entry, including her boyfriend at the time, by name, by 30 year memory, near the clubhouse/Timmy's, on a weekday/swim day, explicitly for beer, long before she was able to see the calendar. Tell me the odds of somebody making that up by chance? That's predicting at least 6 items in a calendar entry blind.
That's ridiculous. Here's the entry text "Tobin's house—Workout/Go to Timmy's for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi." No mention of Leland Keyser. What happened to Bernie, Tom, and Squi in her testimony? And how, in her testimony, did she forget "Squi", Chris Garret, whom she dated that summer? Ford said it occurred in single family home near the country club in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Timmy's house was a townhome in Rockville, Maryland--11 miles away.
So, no, it's not a good point unless your mind is already made up and you're trying to fit facts to what you believe.
Edit:
Further, I think the talk about how his hearing reflected on his temperament is ridiculous. "Judicial temperament" doesn't apply to a judge who's being
personally slandered, libeled, and falsely accused of rape, sexual assault, gang rape, and other heinous crimes. Had he had been calm and dispassionate it would have been proof of being a sociopath to Democrats and their media allies. And there's no questioning that the media were Democrat allies in this instance. I've never seen such naked partisanship and hack journalism. His judicial temperament is obvious from his 12 year record as a judge, during which no one ever had a negative word to say about his temperament.
Also, if you read his opening statement, his anger is very clearly directed at a targeted few people--namely, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Sub-committee who called him "evil", implied that supporting him was tantamount to supporting sexual abuse against women, and maligned and damaged his name at every opportunity. So if a case that involves one of them ever comes up before him on the SCOTUS, he should recuse himself.
This place really is an echo chamber.
Starker on 10/10/2018 at 15:46
Judicial temperament applies to a judge who is being judged as a candidate. If someone behaves for 12 years and throws a temper tantrum at his job interview, you absolutely should judge him based on that.
Furthermore, the tirade about how this is all a Democrat conspiracy and revenge on behalf of the Clintons was a prepared remark, not some on the spur emotional outburst. He knew what he was writing there. And a judge is not supposed to cry "falsely accused" at the first notice, a judge is supposed know that the evidence and process comes first.
And this is supposed to be one the most important people in the US for a lifetime who should be trusted to remain impartial and neutral. How can anyone trust him now? How can any of the nearly two thousand law professors who spoke out against him trust him, how can any Democrat ever trust him, etc. Especially as he has implied there will be revenge.
demagogue on 10/10/2018 at 15:52
I said 6 items in that list. Do a statistical analysis on it. The fact her boyfriend was there isn't a great thing to prove her memory was false or she was making it up when she got other items correct. He's "another boy", and another one that would get her to the actual house. You're not thinking forensically. Take your beliefs and emotions off the table and do pure information analysis on it. Getting a number of items off a list correct blindly is something that forensically raises the police's eyebrows, since there all kinds of reasons to forget certain items, but it's vanishingly rare to get a certain number correct blindly. No one is going to take that evidence to a jury by itself, though. It's not dispositive; it's just probative.
As for the second point, it's legally incorrect. Defamation only applies to political and other public figures if it's with actual malice, and there's not evidence of malice. And, surprise, many legal issues are emotional. Judges need to be held to a higher standard in keeping their emotions in check. I mean it's a job interview for being a Supreme Court justice and the guy cried after 20 minutes of questioning. Seriously? Speaking of his time on the DC Circuit Court, his confirmation for that was also bitter and only very narrowly passed after long negotiations because of his open partisanship. Judges are supposed to be balanced. They could find plenty of conservative leaning judge that didn't wear their partisanship on their sleeve. Supreme Court justices should be held to a higher standard than just any judge. And remember out of Trump's shortlist of candidates, only one was accused of sexual assault after being put on the shortlist, and the others are just as conservative...
icemann on 10/10/2018 at 18:27
Quote Posted by Starker
Especially as he has implied there will be revenge.
Who wouldn't want revenge in these circumstances? I know I would if I were wrongly accused of such a crime.
Sulphur on 10/10/2018 at 18:44
Which is why you aren't a judge. The general public expects better from those practising and laying down law than egoistic sabre rattling, base histrionics, and petty grudges, which is why standards for justice and Chief/Associate Justices exist. Or existed, given the US is currently experiencing the wet childbirth of a farcical dystopia that would have once been the sole province of an Armando Ianucci show.
Renzatic on 10/10/2018 at 18:48
Quote Posted by icemann
Who wouldn't want revenge in these circumstances? I know I would if I were wrongly accused of such a crime.
When you're among the highest echelons of the government, and the person you're avenging yourself against is some random middle class woman, no matter how justified, how right or wrong you may be, it looks terrible.
Nicker on 11/10/2018 at 03:13
Quote:
"Judicial temperament" doesn't apply to a judge who's being personally slandered, libeled, and falsely accused of rape, sexual assault, gang rape, and other heinous crimes.
And you know he is falsely accused because of the extensive and exhaustive FBI investigation... oh, right.
:rolleyes:
Judith on 11/10/2018 at 06:11
Quote:
This place really is an echo chamber.
It's not an echo chamber, it's the other side of the argument not getting what separation of powers really means, and how it works. If that kind of juvenile, emotional attitude was universal among judges, we'd be back in the age of revenge stonings and eye for an eye trials. That's not what democracy is about.