Monday, September 24, 2018

Will the Kavanaugh hearings go forward this Thursday and can they be fair?

The news is happening so fast that it's hard to keep track.

We have Ronan Farrow, Michael Avenatti, new accusers, 30 year old calendars, yearbook entries, and on an on.

Professor Alan Dershowitz posted an article on how the hearings could be fair before a lot of this recent news.   Here is the intro and Rule #1 of 6:
It’s not surprising that each side of the Ford/Kavanaugh he said/she said dispute is seeking different procedures. This is an adversarial high-stakes confrontation between a male Supreme Court justice nominee and his female accuser. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate procedural steps, but there are basic rules that must be followed for hearings of this kind to be fair.
Rule 1: No one should presume that either party is lying or telling the truth. There is no gender-based gene for truth telling. Some women tell the truth; some women lie. Some men tell the truth; some men lie. Without hearing any evidence under oath, and subject to cross-examination, no reasonable person should declare psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim or federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a perpetrator. Nor should anybody declare the opposite. The issue is an evidentiary one and evidence must be heard and subject to rigorous cross-examination, preferably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator.


Anonymous said...

"[P]referably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator." Excuse me? So much for not perpetuating gender roles and stereotypes.

Anonymous said...

The issue is not an evidentiary one! This is a political question. There are two (and likely two more) women that have accused a nominee to the Supreme Court of sexual assault.
Kavanaugh's nomination should be withdrawn, and most likely will be withdrawn prior to Thursday.

Also, I am sure all the old white male senators who are attacking the alleged victims would love to hide behind an experienced female interrogator. Finally, the president's grotesque comments regarding survivors of sexual abuse appears to have sparked a backlash that he and he cronies may not be ready to handle.

Anonymous said...

1108, these are the new rules..try to keep up. Frankly I'm surprised they are allowed to even ask questions.

Anonymous said...

As 11:33 said, it is a political issue, a fabricated storm.

Should the other side just shrug it aside and confirm the SCOTUS nominee just like Judges in this District routinely excuse misconduct by the USAO?

Or should they subject the accusers to an 'unreasonable' bullying session where they are required to prove 'prejudice' when the other side can just lie about it? Like it also happens in this District.

By your proposed logic, Judges should begin holding AUSAs in contempt and tossing indictments left and right. But we know how that ended for Judge Gold.

Anonymous said...

Dershowitz is wrong. He is falling for the old saying "to a carpenter, every problem is a nail and every solution is a hammer." This is not a legal proceeding. This is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the highest position available in one of the co-equal branches of our government.

Anything that even sniffs of wrongdoing is enough to consider in this context. And what happened when he was a kid may, or may not, be enough to disqualify him, but this isn't a legal proceeding.

Anonymous said...

How do you know this is fabricated until you hear from her and him? Oh wait Kavanaugh's calendar doesn't say he assaulted anyone that summer.

Anonymous said...

1:25 - Context is important: 2 months elapsed between his nomination and the confirmation hearings. That was the time to make claims and have it investigated thoroughly.

This, as presented, is simply a smear campaign aimed at derailing the confirmation vote of a qualified jurist to a respected office. The motivation is clear. Nobody cares if it's not true, even better if she objects to testify after holding up the process for 2 weeks.