Posted on 09/23/2018 3:06:15 AM PDT by grundle
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.
Rule 2: The accuser must always testify first, and be subject to cross examination. The accused must then be allowed to respond to the accusation and also be subject to cross-examination. In the bad old days of the Inquisition, the accused was required to testify first without even knowing the grounds of the accusation. The rule of law in the United States had always been the opposite. The accuser accuses first and the accused then has an opportunity to respond to all accusations.
Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making. Fact-finders and investigators must take as much time as necessary to get as close to the truth as possible, without regard to whether this helps the Democrats or the Republican or particular candidates. There should be no deadlines designed to influence the mid-term elections. Both sides should be given as much time as is reasonable to make their cases and no decision should be made until each side has had that opportunity.
Rule 4: Everybody must be willing to accept the “shoe on the other foot test.” The same rules that would apply if a liberal Democrat had been nominated by a liberal Democratic president must be applied to a conservative Republican candidate nominated by a Republican president. There can’t be one rule for the left and a different one for the right. The rule of law must apply equally in all situations.
Rule 5: The standard for proving a serious sexual allegation must be high. In a criminal case, the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.” That standard must vary with the consequences to both sides. On university campuses, for example, the standard for proving a charge of sexual assault that could result in expulsion should be close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps “clear and convincing evidence.”
But it should never be “a mere preponderance of the evidence,” because that means no more than a 51 percent likelihood that the sexual assault occurred. Under that low preponderance standard, 49 out of every 100 people convicted may well be innocent. That is far too high a percentage.
What about when the issue is suitability to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? The consequences of an erroneous decision are high on all sides. A nominee rejected for a false allegation of sexual assault will suffer grievous reputational and career consequences. But so will the woman whose accusations are deemed untruthful. There is also the consequence of having a Supreme Court justice serve for many years if he was a sexual assailant. On balance, the standard should be higher than proof by a mere preponderance. It should come close to clear and convincing evidence, especially if the allegation is decades old and the nominee has lived an exemplary life ever since.
Rule 6: No material information should be withheld from either side. Each side should have a full opportunity to examine inculpatory, exculpatory or otherwise relevant material that may have an impact on the truth-finding process. Specifically, the letter written to Senator Dianne Feinstein must be disclosed to Judge Kavanaugh and to the Senators. Ideally it should also be shared with the public as well, but if there is any highly embarrassing and personal information that is not relevant, it could be redacted.
Doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure because Ford came forward voluntarily with her accusation, thus waiving any right to privacy. Kavanaugh too has waived his privacy rights by being a candidate for the Supreme Court, and any information relevant to his activities, even 36 years ago, should be disclosed.
If these neutral rules are followed, the process may end up being fair to both sides. All Americans have a stake in the fairness of this process and no one should compromise the basic rules of fairness and due process that have long been the hallmarks of the rule of law.
Silly man. It will be a cold day in Hell before the Rats play by rules.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making.
So did that one.
Alan’s from the old school where rules and laws applied.
Dersh keeps forgetting.....Clinton damaged the sacrosanct rule of law.....and Boobamba was completely lawless.
Unfortunately, Americans are left holding the judicial bag.
Berko Shitz probably lifted a few skirts in school. Took some peeks at panties after strategically dropping some pencils. What guy didn’t in school. Aren’t there some ladies out there who went to school with Schumer that could step up and claim he grabbed their head and tried to rub it on his exposed crotch at a teen party. That would stop this laughable spectacle quickly.
Joy Behar says Bret Kanavaugh is guilty.....that is about as high as you can get with all the evidence here...at least the liberals see it that way....Hillary says he is guilty and you can sure take her word.
And his comment about potentially redacting embarrassing information from her letter is a joke. She didn't write this to a family member. She wrote it to a U.S. Senator, and as such it should be open to Freedom of Information Act requirements.
That says it all for me!
Rule #4!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!! Dershowitz SHOULD have put a SARCASM TAG after it!
The air must be pretty thin in Dershowitz’s ivory tower. The rules are to win at any cost and by any means necessary. If they could, the Left would just dispense with all this faux search for the truth and would proceed directly to imprisoning and executing those who oppose them.
Thank God for Alan Dershowitz. He explains what our system is and why it must be preserved. Too many Americans don’t seem to understand these things. I hope at least some of them read this and remember what he teaches them. It is shocking that Ford and her lawyers want Kavanaugh to testify first!
He knows that, though. That’s why he explains through the media what should be happening. I appreciate his efforts. I’m sure he could just relax now that he’s retired and leave this mess to others, especially since he’s paid a price.
That she already proved to be lieing means rule one is still valid but not with her.
How despicable is joy behar.
I think it will be a cold day in hell before Buzzy Ford shows up to testify.
“the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”
But we already know there’s no evidence. It’s impossible. She doesn’t even know where or when this alleged event occurred, plus it’s been 36 years so the house would have been cleaned many times and probably painted many times.
There are no eye witnesses. Anyone she claims might have been there have all denied ever being there or at least have zero recollection of any event.
This is all most likely, made up BS to be a political hit job. I think this went way further than DiFi ever thought it would and they’re just making shit up as they go now.
I hope you are correct. But she is a liberal and lying is what they are comfortable doing. Obama, Bill and Hillary have never shown the slightest discomfort with lying even when there is recorded proof. They just go on with the next lie. And that creepy, demonic attitude Strzok showed when he lied to Congress was over the top.
This spoiled, demanding, rich liberal who is the center of her party’s focus must revel in the attention.
It’s becoming very obvious grassley is willingly subverting Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Another rino rears his traitorous head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.