Balkinization: A Proposed Standard for the Nominee and for the Senate

Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Mark Field : 2:26 PM

I'd propose a "probable cause" standard for the standard of proof.

# posted by

Mark Field : 2:37 PM

I think Prof. Kate Shaw's op-ed was sound but tl;dr Mark Field's could work.

(Taking everything as a whole.)

But, once he's confirmed, I think the standard is tougher than before regardless.

# posted by

Joe : 3:00 PM

Originalism might suggest that the "standard" is based upon the "standards" of the Senate members individually who are providing the advice and consent on confirmation. Anything else might be unconstitutional.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:04 PM

We have a partisan complaining witness working with a partisan law firm making a sexual abuse allegation without a date and location, but with four named witnesses, all of whom who have now denied being present at the alleged event.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/blasey-fords-female-classmate-her-last-alleged-witness-denies-ever-attending-party-with-kavanaugh?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Standards of proof?

These facts are getting close to proving the NYT actual malice standard for defamation of a public figure.

We should start discussing whether a legitimate university should terminate Ford.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:05 PM

How would one prevent the Republicans from finding a single accuser (with no other dvidence beyond their word) for every single nominee in the future? I'm sure there are enough unhinged Republicans that some may even step forward without encouragement.

# posted by

TVOAT : 3:15 PM

A thought came to mind while watching this morning's TV political shows and my stroll through the Internet and especially articles at Daily Kos today.

I imagined Judge K's elite high school classmate and party wing-man Mark Judge writing a fictional screenplay about a lawyer, adopting from his memoir "Wasted" the character Bart O'Kavanaugh in law school in 1991 intently watching the Clarence Thomas Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, with thoughts of some day being before that Committee himself, as his goal was to become a SCOTUS Justice. Then came Anita Hill's bombshell claim of sexual harassment. Bart O'K intently watches the reopened hearing following the FBI investigation and the report to the Committee and the testimony of Anita Hill, admiring the legal skills of Committee members on the Republican side questioning Hill, as Bart O'K has flashbacks to some of his elite private high school days of hi-jinks, excessive drinking and partying in his plush suburban community of elite private boys and girls high schools. [Is it difficult imagining the flashbacks based upon "wasted"?]

A few years ago this might have made a good pitch to Harvey Weinstein.

If Mark Judge or anyone wishes to use this, feel free, free of royalties, etc, but at least give a H/T to this 88 year old geezer.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:34 PM

Just to follow up on Joe's point, yes it should be "taking everything as a whole". In the normal situation where probable cause is the standard (say, a warrant), the opposing party gets no input. In this case, Kavanaugh and perhaps Judge will have their say as well. That should become part of the "probable cause" evaluation. JMHO. As Shag points out, Senators are free to use any standard they want.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:41 PM

There is, of course, a second issue, which is the incentives the standard creates. The lower the evidentiary threshold you set for viewing an allegation as disqualifying, the more you encourage pretextual allegations, because they become an easy way to disqualify a nominee you really dislike for other reasons.

This really is what concerns me most about the present case: If an allegation with this little evidence can derail a nomination, we're basically never going to have another nominee who doesn't get accused of doing something wretched decades ago. Leveling evidence free allegations is going to become SOP.

I might actually prefer a different nominee from Trump's short list, but this reason is enough for me that he must be confirmed, to stop this new development right here and now.

# posted by

Brett : 3:52 PM

Here's the link to one of today's Daily Kos posts on Judge K:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/23/1797171/-Brett-Kavanaugh-has-no-credibility-and-Senate-Republicans-do-not-care

that puts in one place much of reports on Judge K's alleged excessive drinking and partying, etc. It's kind of long with some short videos. There are other posts today at Daily Kos on the matter with commentary that may be interesting.

Query: Was Senate Leader Mitch McConnell aware of Judge K's alleged hi jinks as a teenager for suggesting to his spouse's employer that another candidate might be more readily confirmed. It seems that a lot of people were aware of Judge K's hi jinks.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:53 PM

Brett's closing sentence at 3:52 PM reminds me that back in the 2016 Republican campaigns Brett said he would have preferred someone other than Trump for the Republican nomination. Brett is a hedger.

Let's not forget that George W. Bush was a big drinker at one time but admitted it to himself and got recovery, and then admitted this publicly, then becoming Governor of TX and then President for two terms. But Judge K seems to rely upon that Egypt river. I think his White House enablers Knew of his hi jinks and did a disservice presenting him as an unflawed human being. But Judge K later in life, including after becoming a Judge, romanticized his hi jinks. So perhaps his enablers were between the rock and the hard place.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:13 PM

"We have a partisan complaining witness working with a partisan law firm"

If being a 'partisan' disqualifies one's allegations then we need not listen to yours one whit. No one is a more total partisan.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:18 PM

" If an allegation with this little evidence can derail a nomination"

It's funny that conservatives Brett are saying 'there's so little evidence here' while at the same time yelling 'we shouldn't look *any* further into this!' It's a tell, for sure.

"Leveling evidence free allegations is going to become SOP."

Physician heal thyself!

Leveling bat*^&% nuts conspiracy theories about major political figures is SOP, especially for your 'side.' Obama is a secret Muslim, he's not an American citizen, the Clinton's had Bill Foster killed, the Democrats are running a sex ring out of a pizza store, Sandy Hook was a hoax, the Clintons sold most of our uranium to the Russians, the Democrats have been working to facilitate an 'invasion' by an 'army' of illegal immigrants, etc., etc.,.

What terrifies you is the idea of women accusing white men who look like you of bad behavior, and it starting to be given serious consideration.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:26 PM

"I think his White House enablers Knew of his hi jinks"

Yeah, Grassley didn't collect a list of 60 women from his high school who vouched for him for no reason.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:31 PM

I understand that FBI background investigation reports are not available to the public. It has been reported that there have been 6 such investigations of Judge K. Does anyone here know the purposes and timeframes for each of these? Were reports on all 6 made available to the Committee hearing his nomination to SCOTUS? I understand one of the areas the FBI looks into vigorously is drinking habits of a subject. If the 6 reports fail to include Judge K's teenage hi jinks, with the public information available now on such hi jinks, including Judge K's romanticizing of such hi jinks, were the FBI investigations flawed? If, however, such hi jinks were revealed, were they ignored by the authorities requesting such investigations?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:33 PM

FBI background checks would probably not catch any of this, if it existed. They tend to talk to former teachers, employers, etc., for obvious reasons (these are fairly straight forward to look up) asking general questions (have you ever known the person to say anything anti-American? Did they seem to spend money a lot or have problems with debt? Have you any evidence they abused legal or illegal substances?). Of course the late nite exploits of young men are hardly shared with or known by such figures in their life.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:37 PM

A female surrogate of Judge K was on This Week with George S, talking about the large group of women she had assembled in support of Judge K. She described those in the group in general terms, including some who had dated Judge K in his elite high school days. Their "testimony" might be interesting.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:42 PM

"We should start discussing whether a legitimate university should terminate Ford."

Yet another reason why one should always not take seriously a movement conservative like Bart's invocations of the importance of due process and the rights of the accused. They don't believe in it for a minute when anyone without an R beside their name is involved.

There has been no trial to establish she has defamed anyone at this time, yet Bart and other movement conservatives want to see her fired for her speech with no process to determine if her speech is defamatory at all.

So, let's not take any of Bart's invocations of process seriously. He surely doesn't.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:43 PM

OT: MW, I did see your last comment in the previous thread, but not until after it timed-out. Thanks.

Also, to follow up on the drinking issue (since this thread covers the same basic topic and it's likely to come up):

Generally speaking the rules of evidence don't permit someone to introduce evidence that "X was drunk a lot, therefore s/he was drunk on a particular day". There needs to be evidence that X was drunk on that specific day.

Two caveats here: 1. If Judge were to deny that he ever drank so much that he couldn't remember events, then evidence from his book could be used to impeach him even if that evidence weren't admissible in the first instance. 2. The Senate is not bound by courtroom rules of evidence.

# posted by

Mark Field : 4:46 PM

" It's a tell, for sure."

Yeah, it's a tell that we didn't have much trouble figuring out that this was just an effort to run out the clock, after Feinstein sat on it for a couple of months instead of bringing it up while their was still time to "investigate" before the election.

# posted by

Brett : 4:47 PM

I think conservatives are actually doing K a huge disservice.

If Ford's allegations are not truthful then she has defamed him. To hurry this through gives him no chance to show how baseless and fishy the allegations might be. That will stain him for life. Surely the man's personal reputation is worth a slight delay. Even if the Democrats were to win the Senate (which is unlikely, but made more likely, ironically, by seeming to give a woman accuser the curt dismissal many women have experienced) those Senators won't be sworn in until next year sometime. They could look into this matter, determine the allegations hold no water, and still put K on the Court, but without the stain.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:49 PM

"instead of bringing it up while their was still time to "investigate" before the election"

The election is six weeks away, and like I just said, the new Senate would be several months away. There's certainly time to take a closer look.

"we didn't have much trouble figuring out that this was just an effort to run out the clock, after Feinstein"

Well, well, here we have an allegation of Feinstein doing wrong. What's your evidence, Brett, that Feinstein sat on this for political reasons rather than her stated one (that Ford asked to remain confidential)?

I mean, you hate allegations with no evidence that can't be proven by the one making the allegation, right?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:53 PM

Your conclusion of wrong doing re Feinstein is ultimately backed by simply 1. your general distrust of Feinstein and 2. circumstantial evidence. I mean, at least with K there is actually first hand testimony by the alleged victim.

So, don't act all principled on this, you do the thing you decry *all the time.*

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:04 PM

Brett must be awfully worried about the Senate in the midterms if "running out the clock" seems like a problem to him.

Then too, complaints about "running out the clock" from those who supported the refusal to give a hearing to Merrick Garland should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:10 PM

Mr. W:

Partisanship goes to bias.

The complaining witness’s supporting witnesses all contradicting her allegation goes to her lack of veracity.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:49 PM

The issue of standards came up during the Clinton impeachment (one Lindsey Graham was a manager; his concern about ruining people's lives perhaps a bit more lax back then).

One senator in particular wanted to emphasize it wasn't a normal criminal or civil trial with "jurors" or such. Walter Nixon v. U.S. also held that the determination of "try" (including due process concerns) was a political question. Three justices (particularly Justice White) concurred, arguing for a bit more teeth.

Not wishing to "make something up," on that front, let me just say that I think a senator here might be held to some sort of reasonableness standard. "Held" that is as a matter of reasonable judgement of one's advice and consent duties. What that means is unclear really. As a matter of raw power, a senator can decide by flipping a coin.

Restraint there comes in the press, at the ballot box and maybe internally, such as how their committee assignments are allotted. This is a reasoning out of one's constitutional duties. The same in the impeachment context. Nixon v. U.S. aside, the Senate still has a duty to try people fairly. IMHO. Tradition suggests as much.

# posted by

Joe : 7:12 PM

What might a conspiracy theorist make of the fact that Judge K's Mom served as an Assistant State’s Attorney, Montgomery County, 1978-84? Chevy Chase where the Kavanaughs resided is in montgomery County. What years did Judge K attend Georgetown Prep?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:54 PM

I forgot to mention, I'm watching a Colombo rerun. Oh, by the way ....

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:00 PM

Mr. W:

When did I post anyone should deny Ford due process?

Ford is entitled to have any complaint against her state the claim with specificity (including the date and location of the alleged offense) brought within a reasonable period of time. At a trial, Ford has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against her under oath and to testify after her accusers to address their allegations.

You know, everything Ford and her fellow Democrats sought to deny Kavenaugh.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:02 PM

Judge K's conservative friend Ed Whalen sought to deny Dr. Ford's allegations by elaborately suggesting that it was a classmate resembling Judge K who did the nasty to Dr. Ford, not Dr. Ford.

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!"

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:24 PM

Whom did Whalen collaborate with? White House? Judge K? Committee staff member? Does this call for an FBI investigation? Obstruction of justice? Who "hatched" this? What might a conspiracy theorist make of this? Oh, one other thing ....

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:08 PM

I watched an old Italian slasher film / mystery that was aired as part of a late night horror program. You know, lighter fare than current events.

# posted by

Joe : 10:58 PM

And now Grassley gets a lesson in why it was stupid to permit a delay in response to Ford's allegation. Another women comes forward, with an even more dubious charge, and again every named witness says it didn't happen.

Did they stop forcing children to read The Crucible after I graduated HS, or, like 1984, did it just gradually morph into a "how to" manual without me noticing?

# posted by

Brett : 5:46 AM

Brett, are you suggesting that this may be a Harvey Weinstein redux? Or a Bill Cosby redux? A wise man once said "Time wounds all heels." Does Brett recall how claims of women in those cases were claimed to be "dubious"? Can others think of other #MeToo reduxes? Just maybe Grassley is learning a lesson that while he who hesitates is lost, haste makes waste. Grassley had a reputation for protecting whistleblowers. Might we eventually get a "dubious" complaint from one of Judge K's "model" law clerks with that certain look?

Brett well knows that his hero Trump is "1984" redux.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:23 AM

This link:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/kavanaughs-hilarious-opening-jokes-prove-just-how-much-he-loves-his-family/

applies a comedic sense to Judge K's opening to the Committee, which included much praise for the achievements of his Mom (indeed great achievements) and her influence upon him. For example:

"Her trademark line was: ‘Use your common sense. What rings true? What rings false?’ That’s good advice for a juror and for a son."

How much "commonsense" was there in Judge K's elite private high school days of excessive drinking and partying at the same time his Mom was a prosecutor in Montgomery County where the Kavanaughs lived in its toney town of Chevy Chase? [Brett might say it was common sense for a teenager to know he might have his Mom at his back.] Yes, Judge K was a teenager back at that time.

Bust how much "common sense" was there in Judge K's later drinking days at Yale Law and thereafter Judge K's romanticizing his earlier hi jinks as noted in links provided earlier in this thread?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:44 AM

And was it "common sense" for Judge K in accepting the nomination in his praise of Trump' having made the greatest search of all time in selecting Judge K to serve on SCOTUS? That search seems to have missed a few things. Check out the commentary at:

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/kavanaugh-tries-to-praise-trump-ends-up-saying-something-totally-false/

with indications of Trump's views on certain judges.

Recently Trump stated that Judge K was born to be on the Supreme Court. Of course Trump also believes he was born to be president as he noted at his inauguration the greatest inauguration crowd of all time. Perhaps that was what influenced Judge K's obvious suck up to Trump, which some (actually many) have designated as a lie (but perhaps of the orange variety). I assume Judge K's acceptance was scripted, but by whom? Alas, Judge K's shepherds have led his astray.

Of course, there can be redemption, but it takes time. For Tiger Woods it took 5 years. Tiger took many steps to get there. Maybe Judge K could learn from that. Step one: ....

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:10 AM

Judge K's calendar defense of "What I did that Summer" reminded me of a personal injury jury trial I observed in my early days of practice (1954). The plaintiff was questioned in detail by her attorney. To refresh her recollection she referred to contemporaneous notes she had made on large Christian calendars on many dates, describing her pain and suffering over many months following her injury. It was quite effective in Catholic Boston with jurors. I knew the plaintiff's attorney, who had been a State elected official during WW II that exempted him from the military, an active member of Roxbury's Mission Hill neighborhood from which he drew his clients. Presumably after he signed her up he suggested this calendar note taking.

Regarding Judge K's calendar "contemporaneous" notes, that may have been how his two working parents kept track of his "common sense" during his high school years. What might a conspiracy theorist think of a 53 year old man having saved a 1983 calendar? Did Judge K save calendars for all his teenage years at his elite private high school? [Brett might say it was "good sense" not necessarily "common sense" as perhaps Brett has saved calendars of his high school days that reminded him of the Crucible in referencing at 5:46 AM a new "dubious" claim against Judge K by another woman. It has been reported that Committee staff, as well presumably its Senators, was aware of this perhaps last week while negotiations were ongoing with Dr. Ford's attorneys.

I wasn't aware of this "dubious" new claim until I learned of it from Brett's 5:46 AM comment. So as they say in the blogosphere, H/T Brett.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:57 AM

"Partisanship goes to bias."

It sure does, and as your partisanship is unmatched, so is your bias.

"When did I post anyone should deny Ford due process?"

When you said: "We should start discussing whether a legitimate university should terminate Ford."

Terminate her for what? No process has determined she has done anything warranting termination, so why should be discussing it now?

"everything Ford and her fellow Democrats sought to deny Kavenaugh"

Lol, it's not Ford and the Democrats who are asking for less process, it's the GOP and K. They want to limit witnesses, lines of questioning, time frame and even a further investigation.

Again, every accusation with people like Bart is a confession.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:41 AM

"And now Grassley gets a lesson in why it was stupid to permit a delay in response to Ford's allegation. Another women comes forward, with an even more dubious charge, and again every named witness says it didn't happen."

Here's where you can see that partisanship actually inspires something close to lunacy.

Again, let's say you were hiring someone for an important position in your organization. Someone contacts you with a story about them that calls their character into question. Let's say the story isn't much substantiated (because I don't think Ford's is at this point).

If someone at that point didn't delay a bit to find out more, I think they'd be guilty of negligent hiring if that applicant subsequently wronged someone on the job. Any sensible person would stop to clarify things.

Now, let's say you *didn't* do that, and then *after you rushed to hire the guy* knowing that there was this serious allegation that you *did not address* at all, then *another person leveled a different, equally serious charge.

A normal, reasonable person whose mind has not been tainted by partisan conspiracy theory paranoia would be terrified they made a mistake by not looking into the first allegation better. What more might come out? The employer looks so negligent here.

But for an ideologue like Brett, it just proves they should have embraced the negligence.

Don't retreat, reload!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:46 AM

Did everyone notice that Brett didn't reply to my pointing out his slander of Feinstein wherein he would not be able to produce any 'actual evidence' to defend himself?

Good. Because Brett does this all the time. The more partisan, the more ideologue, the more they engage in unjustified hyperbole. It charges them up and/or serves propaganda goals.

A good example can be found in Brett finding this situation analogous to the Crucible and 1984.

In the Crucible people accused of witchcraft are *tortured and killed.* In 1984 Winston is arrested, held without charge, and tortured (hey, it sounds like the rendition that Bart/Brett think is just fine and dandy!).

In this case K faces....a denial of a promotion from one of the highest levels of federal judiciary to the most high and some people thinking bad things about him.

Yup, totally the same thing!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:50 AM

"What might a conspiracy theorist make of this?"

Conspiracy theories are only allowed on one side these days Shag.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:22 AM

"Again, let's say you were hiring someone for an important position in your organization. Someone contacts you with a story about them that calls their character into question. Let's say the story isn't much substantiated (because I don't think Ford's is at this point)."

Not analogous; There aren't potential political motives for making a false accusation in a private sector hiring situation. There absolutely are when it comes to a Supreme court nomination.

"Did everyone notice that Brett didn't reply to my pointing out his slander of Feinstein wherein he would not be able to produce any 'actual evidence' to defend himself?"

I didn't consider it worth anything more than an eye roll, because that she sat on this letter for nearly two months isn't actually a contested point. As you'd know if you'd been following the coverage. The letter to Feinstein dates back to July.

# posted by

Brett : 10:31 AM

"There aren't potential political motives for making a false accusation in a private sector hiring situation."

Oh, there certainly are! You need to get out there more, there's lots of angry exes out there (actually, I suspect you know this).

"that she sat on this letter for nearly two months isn't actually a contested point"

Ah, but here's the delicious part, which you routinely fail to see.

That she 'sat on' the letter is not in dispute.

What is, is *why* she did? Was it a defamatory reason (she just wanted to employ it later for partisan gain), or was it for the reason she stated, and which the letter itself implied (to keep Ford confidential)?

Here's the thing: *you can offer no actual evidence that it was the former rather than the latter.* None.

That doesn't mean what you say is crazy or not to be considered.

But you're in the same position Ford is in, especially in relation to this newfound principle of speech/defamation that your partisan momement has led you to.

It's amusing you can't/don't see that.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:39 AM

Prof. Kate Shaw argued in her op-ed:

So what standard should the Senate use in evaluating the claims made by Dr. Blasey and in deciding how they bear on Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court? The Senate’s approach to its constitutional “advice and consent” obligation has always depended on context. A number of factors matter: the timing of the vacancy; the justice being replaced; the nominee’s likely impact on the ideological makeup of the court; even the popularity of the president (very popular presidents have always had more leeway when it comes to picking justices). Then, of course, there’s the nominee.

She appealed in part to history:

But in each case, a constellation of considerations, both political and constitutional, operated to defeat nominations of individuals who were certainly qualified, by conventional metrics, to sit on the Supreme Court.

She concluded:

This context-dependent approach arguably leads to the conclusion that the existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying, especially if further corroborating evidence emerges. That’s true even if the evidence wouldn’t support a criminal conviction or even civil liability.

As it continues to emerge. A basic part of this is that this isn't a court of law or even a simple job interview. It is a seat, a key seat at that, to the U.S. Supreme Court. These things all have to be taken into consideration:

Putting Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court in light of credible allegations against him could raise troublesome questions about the court’s legitimacy. And that’s a genuine problem, both for the court’s ability to function and more broadly for the rule of law.

Such things should be taken into consideration at the nominating stage too. And, it should be now at the advise and consent stage. But, you live by the constitutional political appointment process, you die by it. Thus, politics affects the hardline approach of the Republicans, even if an alternative will offer similar (if somewhat different in some fashion -- each member of the conservative wing has certain differences than the others) judicial results.

https://archive.is/IQ2uA#selection-437.0-436.1

# posted by

Joe : 11:10 AM

Mr. W:

There is no perfect objectivity. Every human being is biased by their own life experiences. The best you can do is put yourself in the other person’s shoes and attempt to understand her perspective.

We can discuss whether evidence proves a particular propositon without denying the accused actual due process. If Ford was a normal business employee and credible evidence existed she slandered a public figure, most employers would terminate her services. Would this be a grounds for terminating a tenured professor?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:33 AM

"Oh, there certainly are! You need to get out there more, there's lots of angry exes out there (actually, I suspect you know this)."

Fair point; OK, if I was hiring for an important position, and the ex-wife dropped by to accuse the candidate for it of doing something awful 35 years ago, but had no evidence of it happening, I would certainly ignore her. Might not be technically "politics", but same general principle.

My ex didn't have anything to be mad about, marrying me was just a get out of debt quick scheme. You don't get mad at the ATM when you make a withdrawal. But I understand that some exes are pretty vengeful.

# posted by

Brett : 11:42 AM

Check out TPM's report on how The New Yorker got the info on the new "dubious" claimant against Judge K at:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jane-mayer-says-ramirez-not-original-source-heard-from-other-yale-grad

including the timetable on how long the information had been out there before the claimant was contacted by The New Yorker.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:49 AM

Kate Shaw: This context-dependent approach arguably leads to the conclusion that the existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying, especially if further corroborating evidence emerges. That’s true even if the evidence wouldn’t support a criminal conviction or even civil liability.

So, if I claim without corroboration that I saw Professor Shaw have sex with an underaged girl at an undisclosed place and time, her university should termimate her if they find my claim to be “credible” in order to maintain their own legitimacy?

J’accuse!

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:51 AM

This really is what concerns me most about the present case: If an allegation with this little evidence can derail a nomination, we're basically never going to have another nominee who doesn't get accused of doing something wretched decades ago. Leveling evidence free allegations is going to become SOP.

Oh for Pete's sake, Brett. Grassley and the GOP have withheld mountains of evidence about Kavanaugh's past activities - activities he was questioned about, and about which much could be gleaned form emails and other documents withheld on spurious grounds. Further, Grassley refuses to call any witnesses other than Ford or Kavanaugh because, "Hey, we have to push this through."

And now you cry about "no evidence?" Neither you nor any other Kavanaugh supporter has a leg to stand on when you call for a thorough process. You don't want evidence, other than glowing testimonials from Kavanaugh's friends about how much he likes children and puppies.

# posted by

byomtov : 12:04 PM

I too pine for the evidence based days of Vince Foster murder allegations when talking about masturbation and maybe smoking dope with students (instead of exposing yourself to them, allegedly -- unlike Ed Whelan, don't want to open myself to a libel suit) led to people losing positions or being forced out of the chance to be on SCOTUS.

byomotov is correct that some people are bad putative Cassandras here though they might be imperfect avenues of John Stuart Mill's "truth after a collision with error" maxim. It is useful to note that a major problem with Kavanaugh (cf. ironically Mark Judge, up to a point) is his failure to honestly face up to his past (one can see why). His ongoing lying and b.s. regarding Kozinski et. al. is part of why he is so unfit for SCOTUS.

We do need to learn how to handle these allegations. As seen in the Catholic Church context alone (allegations often of long ago character, but there is a general understanding we aren't talking specters of witches here), a lot of complications can arise. There is a mixture of ways to handle it. I think Anita Hill's op-ed was helpful, but others have made some good arguments too, if that name bothers people.

I don't think that helps Kavanaugh and the Republicans much though. Long term, I hope some pragmatic types in that caucus sees the value of a somewhat better way. This sort of reckless all in approach can have some success, but it is horrible policy and very well can long term bite you in the ass.

# posted by

Joe : 12:28 PM

" too pine for the evidence based days of Vince Foster murder allegations"

Heh, at least we knew Foster was dead. Personally, I never suspected more than that she'd planted the rather dubious "suicide note"; Who commits suicide and rambles on in a note about how somebody ELSE was being treated unfairly?

By comparison the evidence here could be measured in miliFosters. It's not a question of whodonit, but ifitgotdone.

# posted by

Brett : 12:45 PM

"Leveling evidence free allegations"

To recall the issue. The "evidence free allegation" not being he was dead. But, reasons. Of which, Brett seems to have taken part in. There often seems to be an appeal to an almost touchable past slipping away, a past that seems more cloudy upon close examination.

I don't think Brett's proposed new measurement will catch on though again "evidence free" from past threads seem to be "on balance, I don't think the evidence provided is good enough."

Which is reasonable enough thing to say, and judge for oneself, but let's remember what is exactly being said. Words have meanings. Let's not be like Humpty Dumpty.

# posted by

Joe : 1:20 PM

Perhaps the SNL opener for the new season this week might feature a Judge K parody of "Calendar Girl."

I'm imagining a screenplay somewhat in the manner of "Animal House" on the Trump presidency. The script sort of writes itself with direct quotes of Trump and those about him, including Judge K's acceptance of the nomination he received from Trump as well as Judge K's opening statement to the Committee, and from many more in the Trump Administration. As with "Animal House," the screenplay would end with photo reports or what happened to those in the cast over time (including doing time).

Feel free to use this idea, royalty free. But give this 88 year old geezer a H/T.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:28 PM

"I don't think Brett's proposed new measurement will catch on though again "evidence free" from past threads seem to be "on balance, I don't think the evidence provided is good enough."

And he knows -- because I've told him -- that the testimony of a single witness is itself evidence. In fact, it's evidence sufficient to convict in a criminal proceeding. So Brett's partisan views lead him to believe that in this particular case the Senate should apply stronger protection than the criminal law does for a confirmation hearing with much less at stake than a criminal trial.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:41 PM

Mark:

The Ford allegation without a date and location contradicted by all of her own witnesses does not meet the probable cause standard to criminally charge.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:51 PM

"There is no perfect objectivity. Every human being is biased by their own life experiences. The best you can do is put yourself in the other person’s shoes and attempt to understand her perspective.

We can discuss whether evidence proves a particular propositon without denying the accused actual due process. If Ford was a normal business employee and credible evidence existed she slandered a public figure, most employers would terminate her services. Would this be a grounds for terminating a tenured professor?"

Bart is a *hopeless partisan.* He's traded his mind, his spine and his integrity for a shiny badge that says "R" (or "c" for conservative).

This demonstrates it.

I asked "what would you do if someone called and said X about your applicant, wouldn't you take time to check it out?"

He doesn't even bother to respond. Instead, he says essentially, "let's talk about the caller, shouldn't their employer do Y and X?"

He cannot help but be on script. The script is all he has, he is the script now. It's why we should ignore and mock him at most.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:00 PM

"I never suspected more than that she'd planted the rather dubious "suicide note";"

You see what we are dealing with here?

Our conservatives are modern day Birchers.

There are few reasonable ones left.

Ignore and mock them.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:02 PM

"You don't want evidence"

He wouldn't know evidence if it bit him on his butt. He wants confirmation.

This is conservatism now.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:03 PM

Mr. W:

I’m not playing the Democrats innuendo game. The Ford claim has no basis. Time to start talking defamation.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:17 PM

The standard of proof is whatever the Senate majority wants it to be at this point in time.

And it might change next time.

Why do people insist on applying legalistic concepts to pure political issues?

If the Republicans have the votes, Kavanaugh's on the Supreme Court. And that will depend on public opinion and political calculations. The standard of proof, if you will, is what quantum of evidence would affect those calculations.

# posted by

Dilan : 3:34 PM

Dilan:

In sum, the most reprehensible slander is justified so long as we can destroy the nominee’s reputation with voters.

The Party of Asses is now officially the most loathesome political party in the history of the Republic.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:52 PM

SPAM's response to Mr. W at 3:17 PM:

"I’m not playing the Democrats innuendo game. The Ford claim has no basis. Time to start talking defamation."

doesn't inform us who should do such talking. Perhaps SPAM is prepared to call Dr. Ford a liar. Maybe Brett. But that's something Judge K will do. Nor would it be expected that Judge K would sue Dr. Ford. Nor do I suspect would Mark Judge. Trump has come close to calling Dr. Ford a liar. Trump made such an accusation against a woman who claimed Trump sexually abused her, a claim with respect to which the SoL had run. So the woman sued Trump for defamation, a case that is pending in NY. Maybe SPAM has DUI criminal defense skills in his rural police court but maybe the second hand DUI fumes have been influencing his statement in his closing sentence. Judge K is apparently aware of this from his careful denial of Dr. Ford's claim. Orrin Hatch and Ed Whalen's mix-up defense efforts backfired. Whalen doesn't have immunity, however. This is just more hyperbole from SPAM.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:53 PM

SPAM in his response to Dilan appears to be defamatory as to Dr. Ford. But he has no problem with his efforts at group libel with obvious hyperbole.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:59 PM

"In sum, the most reprehensible slander is justified so long as we can destroy the nominee’s reputation with voters."

Obviously I don't agree that this is reprehensible slander.

But I will say this. Let's pretend President X, of either party, nominates Supreme Court nominee Y. X's party has a very slim Senate majority, 51-49.

Now some allegation comes out.

In that situation, whether it is "reprehensible slander" is just as irrelevant as all the legalistic standards that some people insist on lobbing about this thread. If the public believes the reprehensible slander, and that belief is enough to move two Senate votes, the person doesn't get confirmed.

Now let's take the contrary example. Let's assume the allegations are fully true. But the public DOES NOT believe them sufficiently to make it politically necessary for two Senators to vote against their party's nominee. Well, then the nominee gets confirmed.

You don't think these allegations are true. I get that. I think they may be. I am sure you understand that.

But political processes are only about the truth to the extent that the public is sufficiently moved by the truth that they can create a political cost for voting against it. Otherwise, partisan control, not truth, is what matters. In either direction.

We're a bunch of lawyers here, so we want to think everything is governed by a legal standard. But politics is often not about the law. This is politics.

# posted by

Dilan : 4:13 PM

Dilan, the innuendo of " ... the most reprehensible slander ..." seems to me clearly aimed by SPAM at Dr. Ford, considering SPAM's earlier comments and seems to be defamatory. Now maybe SPAM qualifies as a public figure per Sullivan v. NYTimes. Also, SPAM may be judgment proof (in more ways than one), in my humble opinion, of course.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:39 PM

Dilan:

A Democrat activist engaged a Democrat law firm, sat on their allegation until the committee hearings were over, the made an allegation against a GOP nominee without a time or location, then all four of her witnesses say they were not present. The only way Ford’s claim could get any worse is if she confessed to lying before Congress.

As I noted above, the facts in the Ford case get close to the actual malice standard for defamation of public figures.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:44 PM

SPAM demonstrates his malice in his 4:44 PM comment that possibly overlapped my 4:39 PM comment. That first paragraph is a doozy. Is it SPAM's position that Dr. Ford has defamed Judge K? If not Judge K, then who? Or is SPAM's claimed defamer someone other than Dr. Ford? Perhaps SPAM thinks he might deter Dr. Ford from testifying with his " ... reprehensible slander ... " claims. Bully for SPAM, but it's all a SPAMBURGER.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:23 PM

After watching segments of Judge K on Fox, a better schtick for SNL this Saturday on its season opener might be a Judge K parody on Madonna's "Like a Virgin."

The "Virgin Defense" might be a good public relations efforts to keep Trump's Revengelicals base in line. If the claims of Dr. Ford and Ms Martinez are accurate, Judge K did not lose it with them. But Judge K went into great detail in the interview maintaining virginity until well after college. I wonder how that well that will go at Yale. The Late Nite comics will be working overtime on this interview. Perhaps the perceived image of Chevy Chase is, as a wise man once said in a Roxbury neighborhood in Boston, "All talk and no jock." Does Trump believe this? Was that what was supposed to stay in Georgetown Prep?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:40 PM

OOPS! So sorry. In my comment at 7:40 PM in the second paragraph, first sentence, my reference to Ms Martinez was in error; the second claimant to come forward was a Ms Ramirez. My apologies.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:24 PM

Kavanaugh's claim to have been a virgin is bizarre on several levels:

1. It's not responsive to the 2 known claims against him, neither of which involved penetration.
2. TMI, Brett.
3. It's inconsistent with claims he made in, for example, his yearbook entries.
4. It's inconsistent with his known associations with, say, Mark Judge and DKE. To say nothing of the society commonly known as "Tit and Clit".
5. If it isn't true, he's now vulnerable to devastating impeachment when he didn't need to say it.
6. If it's not true, he must be VERY confident in the silence of anyone who can contradict it.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:12 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 10:22 PM

After I posted the comment at 9:12, it occurred to me that he might very well have volunteered the information because he knows, or suspects, that there are additional allegations coming to which that would be a relevant defense.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:46 PM

Mark:

You are correct. Kavenaugh must be certain he had no partners to make this claim. Of course, another Democrat can claim she recovered a memory of having sex with him at an undisclosed place and time with the assistance of her Democrat attorney.

Most likely, like most future attorneys at that age, Kavenaugh was most likely a geek and a virgin.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:46 PM

The Democratic Fascists are on the streets seeking to terrorize Congress.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SmashRacismDC/status/1044408830564683776

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:48 PM

At this point it is drip drip drip. And that usually means the nomination is going down.

# posted by

Dilan : 12:14 AM

SPAM's off hand remark at 10:46 PM:

"Most likely, like most future attorneys at that age, Kavenaugh was most likely a geek and a virgin."

most likely is self-biographical. The boyos at SPAM rural police court will be smirking when he shows up for his next DUI plea deal.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted, despite Gina), Huff Post had a report yesterday that Judge K's appearance on Fox yesterday was likely the work of Bill Shine, formerly of Fox, now of the WH communications staff, tasked with guiding Judge K in the confirmation process. Bill Shire had been fired by Fox after years of guidance he provided for the late Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. Trump hired Shine for his skills protecting Ailes and O'Reilly from what were initially "dubious" sexual claims that cascaded with time. And can we forget Trump's past and his Access Hollywood that revealed his proclivities. There are deep, deep piles to search, but even Trump's base of Revengelicls can't find any redemption. And deep in mind Judge K's acceptance of his nomination praising the greatest search ever for a SCOTUS jurist by Trump who had in the 2016 Republican campaign conquered the cream of the Republic crop that included Senate Judiciary Committee members Sen. Raphael Cruz (TX Canadian) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SCar, Cracker). Now for a chorus of "Sweet Sixteen.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:13 AM

I just noted a headline in the NYTimes that Judge K took a vow not to withdraw. Under the circumstances that may be equivocal.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:18 AM

"At this point it is drip drip drip. And that usually means the nomination is going down."

But they're such tiny, meaningless drops; Allegations lacking in evidence, contradicted by named "witnesses", and Martinez qualified her accusation so much it's barely even a question.

Unless Flake views this as nothing more than an excuse to screw Trump out of a nomination, I don't see the vote failing on the basis of such sketchy allegations. Only people looking for an excuse to reject Kavanaugh would take this sort of garbage seriously.

And I'm very glad to see Kavanaugh is digging his heels in; It suggests that on the Court he'd be a match for Thomas, no longer caring whether his rulings outraged the left.

# posted by

Brett : 8:34 AM

Judge K has himself said: "I'm not going anywhere." Just maybe there's one place he'll not be going to. Is Judge K being equivocal, prescient ... ?

Back in the day Trump and Roy Cohn took a shine to each other. Many decades later Trump has his own Shine, Bill, the former Fox fixer for Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, until Fox fixed Shine's wagon. Consider how seemingly unprofessional, or at least unprecedented, that a SCOTUS nominee would go public. The guidance from Shine apparently was to shine the spotlight on Judge K, most likely at the direction of Trump.

And Brett, over time that "drip, drip, drip" can turn into "Stormy Weather." (As a kid listening to radio shows in the 1930s and '40s I learned of the Chinese Water Torture and its effectiveness. This might suggest all this brouhaha is an effort by Chinese hackers against Trump because of his tariffs in the manner of Russia hackers for Trump in 2016. Yes, haha!)

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:19 AM

Brett: no longer caring whether his rulings outraged the left.

Lawyers are polite to judges, even when they act like assholes or enter brain dead rulings, because they may preside over your future cases.

What does a judge do with your case after you have slandered them with the intent of destroying their lives?

It would be karmic justice if a Justice Kavenaugh decided an appeal seeking to overturn NY Times v. Sullivan’s license to defame.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:27 AM

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:39 AM

Once again I suspect that SPAM's "observation at 9:27 AM:

"Lawyers are polite to judges, even when they act like assholes or enter brain dead rulings, because they may preside over your future cases."

is likely self biographical. Consider Special Counsel Bob Mueller's lawyers in the VA Manafort case in how they responded to certain statements by Judge Ellis. A lawyer can be both courageous and polite in making sure that his/her client receives justice rather than focus of the lawyer's future cases. Perhaps SPAM's observation is that of an attorney who may act like an asshole or is brain dead. While the attorney is an officer of the court, he/she has an obligation to serve the interests of the client. However, I recognize that the scenario in a rural police court may be somewhat different.

And SPAM's closing:

"It would be karmic justice if a Justice Kavenaugh decided an appeal seeking to overturn NY Times v. Sullivan’s license to defame."

could possibly be one of the reasons Trump nominated Judge K.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:00 AM

And check out this current post at TPM:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kavanaugh-and-georgetown-prep-friends-called-themselves-alumni-of-girl-in-yearbook

about a yearbook entry and Judge K's explanation and the subject of the entry's response as she only recently learned of the yearbook entry. Was this "common sense" for a self-proclaimed virgin (i.e.,Judge K) when a studentin an elite private high school?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:18 AM

I don't think any liberal ever doubted that the guy who spent millions of dollars investigating Vince Foster's "murder" was willing to "outrage the left". Somehow, though, I don't think that "trolling the libs" is the primary function of a Supreme Court Justice.

I fear a future of evidence free attacks. Can't we just go back to good old days?

I blame the allegations that Chief Justice John Rutledge was a crazy alcoholic in the early 1790s that helped lead to the rejection of his confirmation in a vote largely divided by party myself. No more Rutledge-ing!

Anyway, Rick Hasen wrote a book entitled "The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption." Scalia did troll a lot, including on the bench. Scalia and Thomas (a sort of Jekyll and Hyde figure himself, half jovial hardworking colleague, half angry ideologue whose wife is full Tea Party and quite open about it) are put forth as models by the Republican Party. The die was cast.

===

tbt: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-with-vince-foster.html

# posted by

Joe : 10:23 AM

Shag:

I understand this may be outside the experience of a tax attorney, but argument is made before a court enters its ruling. Afterward, if you lose, you appeal a brain dead ruling.

Don’t get mad, get even. ;^)

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:43 AM

On the Scalia point, yeah, he was a troll.

Remember, most dissents are meaningless. Only occasionally and famously does the Court later adopt a dissent as doctrine.

So there's no need for long dissents pointing out all the alleged errors of the majority in most instances. Just say you disagree and say why. Most dissents should be a page or less.

Scalia did what he did because he had a big ego, God's gift to the federal bench, and was a troll.

# posted by

Dilan : 10:57 AM

I wonder if the WH is now conducting a cost/benefit analysis for continuing to put Shine on the Judge K confirmation. Eventually Shine was rebuffed by For for his many years buffing Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, yes, o' really.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's vow to "plow ahead" [no jokes, please!] to get Judge K confirmed well may have calculated his own personal cost/benefit analysis considering separation of powers issues with his spouse being employed by Trump in his cabinet subject to Trump's will. (I wonder if there has been any "pillow talk" about the 25th A.)

By the Bybee [expletives deleted, despite Gina], considering Judge K's self-proclaimed long-time virginity, how did he come up with that salacious memo to Ken Starr's staff on the questioning of Bill Clinton when Clinton was to be questioned for matters concerning a consensual sex act, as presumably Judge K had limited personal experience of such consensual acts? "Common Sense?" Apparently Ken Starr didn't seem to think so.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:59 AM

It's quite possible that Kavanaugh is using the term "virgin" to mean "hasn't had vaginal intercourse". That, as we all remember was the basis for Bill's infamous "I did not have sex with that woman". If indeed that's what Kavanaugh meant, the wheel really will have turned full circle.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:11 AM

SPAM's feeble response at 10:43 AM to my comment at 10:00 AM is a confirmation of my comments. Sure, if a lawyer politely challenges a judge during a trial and the judge rules against the lawyer, then there may follow an appeal. In the example I gave, could it be that Judge Ellis sort of apologized sort of realizing that he was in error and that such error might be recognized on an appeal? Apparently the Special Counsel's attorneys in the VA Manafort case are a tad more skilled than SPAM in politely addressing a judge who might be in error during a trial. Perhaps SPAM is concerned with his perceived consequences in challenging a judge in his rural police court for personal economic reasons.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:22 AM

Mark's comment at 11:11 AM reminds me of the recent "outercourse" defense employed by a defendant, I think, in CA that got a lot of publicity.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:25 AM

Listening to those Republican operative women interviewed for CNN, one referenced that he didn't have sexual intercourse. Kavanaugh seemed quite coached and perhaps his advisors let him know that sort of thing was getting some traction on his side.

# posted by

Joe : 11:29 AM

While having lunch today, I watched a re-run on PBS World of Amanpout & Co. broadcast of yesterday. It featured interviews of Nelson Mandela's widow, Robert Redford and Ken Burns, all interesting, that I recommend especially for liberals. Judge K is not a subject of these interviews. The widow's interview came about because of the UN meeting today. [Unfortunately this thread took up time that I would have spent watching Trump at the UN. I'll catch it later.] The Redford interview came about because of his new movie "The Old Man and the Gun," which apparently does not center on Heller. Ken Burns was interviewed in connection with his new documentary "The Mayo Clinic" and its role in health care over the years. I probably won't see either Redford's flick or Burn's doc, unless they appear on basic TV. I think, but am not sure, that Amanpour & Co. may be available via the Internet.

That's my public message for today.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:14 PM

After reading the Daily Kos post at:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/25/1798543/-World-laughs-at-Trump-as-he-opens-his-UN-speech-with-bragging

I am anxious to watch the speech in its entirety to better appreciate what the Late Nite comics will come up with.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:31 PM

Back on topic, the link to this Daily Kos post:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/25/1798530/-In-Fox-interview-to-clear-his-name-Kavanaugh-lied-again

suggesting back then in Judge K's elite private high school he was drinking under the old law (line in the old joke about consensual statutory rape). Maybe Judge K's handlers failed to fact check the script.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:41 PM

There is a connection here to the "The Mayo Clinic" documentary in that Justice Blackmun, the writer of Roe v. Wade, joined it as its first in-house counsel.

https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)65119-7/fulltext

My comment on John Rutledge was fairly serious as a matter of history and the advice and consent role.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/senate-rejects-chief-justice-nominee-dec-15-1795-232510

[I read a more academic article with fairly similar conclusions recently but cannot find it at the moment.]

"In turning down Rutledge, the Senate made it clear that political views were fair game in examining a nominee’s qualifications. Those who differed substantively from most senators could expect rough going — as has occurred anew from time to time and still exists today."

There were quite valid reasons to determine Rutledge was not well (he attempted suicide shortly after the failed nomination) but the final vote was divided by party. But, at some point, even ideological fellow travelers will be deemed inappropriate.

GM has a later post on a draft of his article on an influential early lower court opinion. Justice Washington's words in Green v Biddle were cited and come to mind here as well:

[Various opinions on the dispute at issue] incline us strongly to suspect that a great diversity of opinion prevails in that state upon the question we have been examining. However this may be, we hold ourselves answerable to God, our consciences, and our country to decide this question according to the dictates of our best judgment, be the consequences of the decision what they may.

That is, the justices swore an oath and have a duty to determine the law as they deem fit. The power is ultimately theirs. But, it is reasonable to say that "best judgment" is something that can be opined upon, after all "We the People" ultimately are in charge. That is what the author of this post did at the start. He put forth reasonable grounds for others to help determine if senators were using best judgment.

# posted by

Joe : 2:00 PM

Here's a link to another Daily Kos post:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/25/1798569/-Top-Republican-admits-GOP-men-can-t-be-trusted-to-treat-Dr-Ford-appropriately-during-hearing

that I wish to comment on. While Grassley is not a lawyer the rest, or most, of the GOP all male members are. Some came to the Senate with chops as prosecutors. Sen Lindsey Graham (Cracker, SCar) mentioned on a TV show tall his past Sunday that he was once a prosecutor, a defense attorney and a judge. Sen. Cornyn was an AG. Normally they want camera time with their questions, many of which may have been prepared by the Committee's legal staff that I assume includes female attorneys who could structure the types of questions like an outside female attorney skilled in sexual abuse litigation. Committee Democrats include 4 women, some of whom were prosecutors. If the Committee insists on outside female counsel, perhaps the Democrat minority might be permitted by the Committee to select its choice of outside female counsel to examine Judge K.

Grassley and the other GOP committee members are not fooling anyone regarding their motivations. As Brett might say, Bully for them.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:15 PM