Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[J. J.]

Whitehouse pretty much undermined the argument that Kavanaugh will take the Court to the right.

[J. J.]

Even with Kavanaugh, the SCOTUS will be more liberal than the Rehnquist Court. 

[J. J.]

Even with Kavanaugh, the SCOTUS will be more liberal than the Rehnquist Court. 

No its not...this is one of the most Conservative SCOTUS's in modern history

Oh well. This is what Billy Joe gets when he favors punishing brown people over getting his welfare and food stamps.

You would have to claim that Kagan and Sotomayor are to the right of Souter and Stevens, that Roberts is to right of Rehnquist, and that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia.   The only point where SCOTUS even moved slightly to the right Roberts was with Alito.

Can you say that was a straight face. 

[J. J.]

You would have to claim that Kagan and Sotomayor are to the right of Souter and Stevens, that Roberts is to right of Rehnquist, and that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia.   The only point where SCOTUS even moved slightly to the right Roberts was with Alito.

Can you say that was a straight face. 

What difference does that make. The overall composure of the Roberts court is one of the most Conservative in modern history and its about to go off the rails with Kavanaugh.

Also btw, do you realize that Blackmun and Stevens, who were both appointed by Republican presidents, were more liberal than Ginsburg,Sotomayor,Breyer, and Kagan:

You should be looking at a more up to date chart.



Sotomayor has now moved to the left of Stevens and both she and Ginsburg are to the left of Blackum.  Gorsuch is, at least currently, more liberal than Scalia and Alito.  Roberts has moved to the left as well.   

Like I said, you make the claim that Kagan and Sotomayor are to the right of Souter and Stevens, that Roberts is to right of Rehnquist, and that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. You can't do it with a straight face, or at least an up to date graph. 

[J. J.]

Like I said, you make the claim that Kagan and Sotomayor are to the right of Souter and Stevens, that Roberts is to right of Rehnquist, and that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. You can't do it with a straight face, or at least an up to date graph. 

But once again...wether or not some justices have moved to the left or the right is irrelevant because the overall partisanship and ideological leanings of this court is one of the most Conservative in history and will become even more so with Kavanaugh.There probably hasnt been a court this Conservative since pre-FDR days.

Try the 1980's through mid-1990.  That yellow ine on the chart represents the Court overall.    From O'Conner's appointment to the mid 2000's the Court was more conservative.  It also was more conservative in the early 1970's and in the late 40's early 50's.

It is time for the pendulum to swing back. 

[J. J.]

Like I said, you make the claim that Kagan and Sotomayor are to the right of Souter and Stevens, that Roberts is to right of Rehnquist, and that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. You can't do it with a straight face, or at least an up to date graph. 

But once again...wether or not some justices have moved to the left or the right is irrelevant because the overall partisanship and ideological leanings of this court is one of the most Conservative in history and will become even more so with Kavanaugh.There probably hasnt been a court this Conservative since pre-FDR days.

Try the 1980's through mid-1990.  That yellow ine on the chart represents the Court overall.    From O'Conner's appointment to the mid 2000's the Court was more conservative.  It also was more conservative in the early 1970's and in the late 40's early 50's.

It is time for the pendulum to swing back. 

Like every historical account fathomable, the pendulum is as far right on the court as the Dred Scott decision.

The stats say something different.  You may not like that, but that is what they show.  I don't know your age, but I would suspect that SCOTUS was more conservative in your lifetime than it is in 2018.  Certainly, the current Justices appointed in the last 25 years are to the left of their replacements.  With one vacancy, that is 7 of the 9 Justices.

[J. J.]

With the exception of the Warren court...the SCOTUS has almost always been a Conservative institution. There is no pendulum swinging back. There are plenty of examples of Conservative judicial activism in history prior to Warren...even 5 of the 7 judges who cast their vote for Roe were appointed by Republican presidents.

Ah, no.  Look at the chart again:



In the late 1970's the Court was very middle of the road, and really from 2003 it was middle of the road.  It was more liberal in the 1952-70, and in the 1930's and well into the 1940's.

[J. J.]

These protesters are so lame

Not as lame as Donald Trump supporters.

Isn't that what they said in 2016?

[J. J.]

What disturbs me most about Brett Kavanaugh is not so much what he would do with Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, or his pro-corporate rulings, but his support for what is essentially an imperial presidency without accountability.  

What is the evidence for this?

Kavanough made it clear that he doesn't support investigations of a President so long as they remain in office, as well as refusing to recuse himself from any case involving the Mueller investigation. 

You have to quality that.  Investigation by the executive branch might be problematic; investigation by the legislative branch seems okay with him. 

[J. J.]

I'm not 100% on whether a criminal investigation would normally happen in this case, tbh. I'd like to think that this sort of thing would be, even if reported a long time after. Maryland has no statute of limitations on attempted rape, so it definitely could be investigated.

My point is that an investigation could come up with more information, even if it doesn't end up with a prosecution.

1.  Based on Ford's description, this wasn't attempted rape.  It would be currently be a 4th degree sexual crime.  I have no idea what it was in 1982. Currently, the statute of limitations is one year.

2. It isn't a federal crime. 

3.  I see no reason why the Senate could not send an investigator, or that the Democratic members could hire one.  Ford, even without testifying, may be able to give the investigator more details that could support her story. 

The details could be:

1.  How did she get to the party?  Can she remember anything about the trip?

2.  How did she get back home?   Can she remember anything about the trip?

3.  Who else was at the party? Was it somebody's birthday?  Was someone celebrating getting into college.  Could she remember a song that was playing; that could help indicate the date of the party.

4.  What time of the year was it?  Did she have to wear a coat?  Was she wearing shorts?  Did she have the feeling that she had to go to school the next day or the next week?

5.  How often did she go to parties?  Was it 1-2 times a year?

6.  Can she give any more details about the house?  She said it had a pool and at least one upper story.

These questions could lead the investigators to witnesses and to the location.

[J. J.]

...

3.  Who else was at the party?

...

These questions could lead the investigators to witnesses and to the location.

This is pretty simple. Ford has already named other people who she remembers being there. The Washington Post tried to contact them.

The FBI could very easily send some agents to go and have chats with those people, and also with Kavanaugh, with Ford, with the classmate who said that "the incident did occur," and no doubt there are other people and things that can be investigated, and a whole host of questions that can be asked and facts that can be examined.

All it takes is Republicans wanting to actually investigate it.

This is not a complicated thing.

The only other person I have heard named is Judge.

If there is someone out there that will verify that the party took place, that would turn this on its head.  Why don't the Democrats just say that? 

[J. J.]

Another question I have is... why was she at a "small party" with three boys none of which went to her school or is apparently willing to vouch for her decades later? Who did she go to this party with? Who invited her? How did she get home? The only reason I ask is because Brett, Mark, and PJ are all students at Georgetown Prep who still like each other decades later. Christine is the odd one out.

I'm interested in how she got home.

Maybe a victim won't be paying too much attention to how she got to the party.  After she runs from the house, after the attempt, would stick out.

[J. J.]

You mean no evidence other than the fact she knew both Kavanaugh quite well, as well as the sacrificial goat Kavanaugh's friend is suggesting was the "real" assailant, but she consisetently identified Kavanaugh as her assailant, and recently just as emphatically said she'd know if it was the other guy only but it wasn't?

Got it. "No evidence". A sexual assault occurred, but her ID of someone she knew very well, saw ALL too up close and personal, not a SCRAP of evidence suggesting why she might be mistaken beyond "reasons" and "maybe", and you still have the obstinance to pavlovian respond "no evidence".

The sole evidence that we have is that, in 2012, Ford stated that, while in high school she was assaulted.  We don't have her statement, at that point, that it was Kavanaugh.  We have a record of her statement, that she has furnished, that materially differs from her current statement.

This is the sole evidence. 

We know that is 2012, Kavanaugh was a public figure and that her family had dealing with Kavanaugh. Even Ford claimed that she knew that Kananaugh was a public figure.

The sole evidence, at this point, is Ford's statement, about someone she knew was a public figure, which is recorded as being materially different from her current claim.

So far, the people that Ford has claimed were present in the area, state that this incident did not happen.  There is not even hearsay evidence that this incident occurred or that the particular party occurred, at this point.   Certainly the Senate should look for that evidence, even for just the party. 

Absent of anything else, this is not Ford's word against Kavanaugh's. This is Ford's word against the record of her prior statement, the people that she claims were witnesses, and finally Kavanaugh's word.  The preponderance of evidence, currently, does not support Ford's claim. 

[J. J.]

We know that is 2012, Kavanaugh was a public figure and that her family had dealing with Kavanaugh.

You really think she endeavored to determine if the judge in her mom's case (a routine proceeding to rubber stamp a deal made with a bank) happened to be related to someone she knew in high school?

It might have been mentioned, e.g. "We had a Judge Kavanaugh.  Didn't you go to school with her son?"

[J. J.]

The sole evidence that we have is that, in 2012, Ford stated that, while in high school she was assaulted.  We don't have her statement, at that point, that it was Kavanaugh.  We have a record of her statement, that she has furnished, that materially differs from her current statement.

This is the sole evidence. 

She told her husband in 2002, and if a thorough investigation were done no doubt we'd turn up some contemporaneous accounts based on the number of people who've said that lots of people who discussed at their school.

The husband might just be a bit bias.

I would be surprised if there were contemporaneous rumors. That would back up Ford's story, but her account indicates that she did not spread it around.  I understand why she would not say anything (I wholeheartedly disagree with Trump's tweet about it).

I am concerned that there isn't even confirmation that Ford, Judge and Kavanaugh were at a party together.  Surely there were other women at the party who might remember that and won't "cover for a bro."

Once you interview the people that Ford says were there, and/or anyone who claims that they were there, I'm at a loss to figure out what additional investigation there could be.  You could eliminate all the houses in Montgomery County, MD that didn't have a pool in 1982, but that won't help all that much.

All that said, I think someone attempted to assault Ford in 1982; it could have even Kavanaugh, but not as she is describing it. 

[J. J.]

The sole evidence that we have is that, in 2012, Ford stated that, while in high school she was assaulted.  We don't have her statement, at that point, that it was Kavanaugh.  We have a record of her statement, that she has furnished, that materially differs from her current statement.

This is the sole evidence. 

She told her husband in 2002, and if a thorough investigation were done no doubt we'd turn up some contemporaneous accounts based on the number of people who've said that lots of people who discussed at their school.

The husband might just be a bit bias.

I would be surprised if there were contemporaneous rumors. That would back up Ford's story, but her account indicates that she did not spread it around.  I understand why she would not say anything (I wholeheartedly disagree with Trump's tweet about it).

I am concerned that there isn't even confirmation that Ford, Judge and Kavanaugh were at a party together.  Surely there were other women at the party who might remember that and won't "cover for a bro."

Once you interview the people that Ford says were there, and/or anyone who claims that they were there, I'm at a loss to figure out what additional investigation there could be.  You could eliminate all the houses in Montgomery County, MD that didn't have a pool in 1982, but that won't help all that much.

All that said, I think someone attempted to assault Ford in 1982; it could have even Kavanaugh, but not as she is describing it. 

Good to know we should all trust your opinion of what happened over the actual victim, right?

No, we should trust evidence. By her own admission, Ford does not remember the details.

[J. J.]

If more accusations come and Kavanaugh gets pulled, Dems can use the GOP Senators' comments about Dr. Ford as attack fodder.  They can attack them as stating on the record they'd vote for someone who'd commit this type of stuff.

A pattern would bolster Ford's claims.

[J. J.]

https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1043964244637745153

At least we know he's going to put up a fight to clear his name.

It depends on what is on the calendar.  He may be able to show that he was away for much/all of that summer. 

[J. J.]

By the way, without any supporting evidence, this would surely constitute as libel/slander.

Public figure, so no.

[J. J.]

The problem is that there IS credible evidence to date:

1.  A coherent story narrative that makes sense
2.  Notes from psychotherapy indicating that this has been a long-standing issue
3.  A non-deceptive polygraph supporting her account

That's not "nothing".  That's enough for your professional license to come under scrutiny if your are in any number of professions.  I do agree that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard for this.  On the other hand, it is NOT fair for Kavanaugh to have to prove he didn't do this beyond a reasonable doubt, either, and that IS the standard that people are holding Kavanaugh to (without being open about that fact).  Expecting Dr. Ford to testify at this point, given all that's transpired, is far from unreasonable.  

I agree that "beyond a reasonable doubt," is not the standard in this case for anyone.  I would be looking for it being a "more likely than not" standard.

I would disagree with the characterization.

1.  The "story" is not coherent, in that there are some large gaps. That is understandable, but it is also problematic.  It is incomplete. 

2.  There is evidence, the notes, that Ford assaulted in high school.  Those notes also give a different account of the assault, it was a material difference.  It could be a transcription error, but it is also  problematic.  An earlier transcribed account conflicts with Ford's current account. 

3.  This would show that Ford is not lying.  It does not show that Ford is accurate.

I think that it is probable was assaulted in high school, probably at a party.  However, it doesn't reach the "more than likely than not," standard, at this point that her account is accurate.

If someone would come forward and say "I remember that Crissy and Brett were at this party, at the house with swimming pool."  That would go along way to filling in those gaps.  If there was an audio tape of the counseling session which clearly recorded Ford saying that it was 2 males, and that 4 males were at the party, that would also work.  We're getting just the opposite.

[J. J.]

Honestly, Deborah Ramierz's story should sound very plausible to anybody who has ever met a drunk frat boy.

Yes, but how many drunk frat boys were there?

[J. J.]

If Dr. Ford says, under oath, that Brett Kavanaugh held her down and groped her, that would be enough for me to vote against him as a Senator.  Period.  

I would need something more that that. 

[J. J.]

So we have:

Dr Ford's allegation.

Remirez (who came forward to say Kav's best friend Mark Judge is lying regarding his account and characterization of the their High School partying).

Who/ what is the 3rd accusation or person to come forward?

Well, the description was not of the incident Ford alleges.  The claim is that it was a gang rape; Ford does not claim that. 

[J. J.]

At least six supposed eyewitnesses have been named between Ford and Ramirez, and zero of them have supported the charges. All have vehemently denied.

Lol.

If you were an eyewitness to either of these and did nothing to stop it, of course you'd deny.

And in this case several people seem to remember hearing about the incident.

In Ford's case, they do not recall that there was ever this party. 

The final one, Leland Ingham Keyser, says that she was never at a party with Kavanaugh, and did not know him.  She is a friend of Ford's. 

[J. J.]

I assure you that these folks know how to say "I don't recall!" in seven different languages.

If they were part of this in any way, they don't want to recall.  And how can you prove they DO recall?

So everyone is wrong except Ford?  Kavanaugh and Judge are wrong and/or lying?  So is Smith?  And now, so is Keyser?  All these names came from Ford. 

Keyser is a friend of Ford's, never met Kavanaugh, she actually contributed to a Democratic senator.

This is just looking verification that the party occurred.  We don't even have that.