Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Discuss the latest legal news and law firm gossip with fellow attorneys.
MASH_Law

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:35 pm

Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby MASH_Law » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:31 am

Students and faculty staged a sit-in Monday in protest against President Trump’s nomination of the conservative appellate court judge, a 1990 Yale law graduate, to the Supreme Court.

JACOB STERNDAVID YAFFE-BELLANY


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... gh/571225/

SenorGato

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:39 am

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby SenorGato » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:50 am

Maybe it is time for a change in the way society views these schools and those that attend them.

MASH_Law

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:35 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby MASH_Law » Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:57 pm

SenorGato wrote:Maybe it is time for a change in the way society views these schools and those that attend them.


Yes, but how? What are the first reasonable steps to take?

MASH_Law

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:35 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby MASH_Law » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:11 pm

What Teens Think of the Kavanaugh Accusations
“They just keep saying ‘Boys will be boys.’ But I’m in high school—I don’t want that to happen to me.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/arch ... ns/570994/

SenorGato

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:39 am

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby SenorGato » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:41 pm

MASH_Law wrote:
SenorGato wrote:Maybe it is time for a change in the way society views these schools and those that attend them.


Yes, but how? What are the first reasonable steps to take?


1) Punish those that are found guilty of sex crimes.

2) If someone is accused of a sex crime, then that person has no place in the legal system until all crimes are investigated. Not that criminal charges are necessary, however. If accusations are substantiated, then it will suffice to show the character of the individual.

3) I wouldn't be against federal legislation concerning this issue.

4) Do away with this "oh well, what can we do" attitude that you are currently portraying.

User avatar
christytothemoon

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby christytothemoon » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:25 pm

It is a real shame that it takes our law students to call the supreme court out on such a hideous scandal.

MASH_Law

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:35 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby MASH_Law » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:32 pm

SenorGato wrote:
MASH_Law wrote:
SenorGato wrote:Maybe it is time for a change in the way society views these schools and those that attend them.


Yes, but how? What are the first reasonable steps to take?


1) Punish those that are found guilty of sex crimes.

2) If someone is accused of a sex crime, then that person has no place in the legal system until all crimes are investigated. Not that criminal charges are necessary, however. If accusations are substantiated, then it will suffice to show the character of the individual.

3) I wouldn't be against federal legislation concerning this issue.

4) Do away with this "oh well, what can we do" attitude that you are currently portraying.



I agree. I believe we are moving in the right direction with Bill Cosby being sentenced today. And DNA is helping to make sure the right person is punished. We went in the wrong direction with Brock Turner. There are still too many that get away with it. It is the older versions of belief that we need to educate. Today, I heard someone say that all of the Cosby victims asked for what they got. I can't help but wonder if people would say the same thing if it happened to their mother, daughter, or sister.

User avatar
christytothemoon

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby christytothemoon » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:54 pm

Yahoo readers’ comments on Brett Kavanaugh are pouring in, now in the tens of thousands and multiplying by the second. Many stand by the Supreme Court nominee, while others express support for the women who have accused him of sexual assault. But certain emotions seem to unite them all: disgust, fear, as well as the question: How did we get here?

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby QContinuum » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:41 pm

christytothemoon wrote:Yahoo readers’ comments on Brett Kavanaugh are pouring in


I wouldn't put too much stock in Yahoo readers' comments - many of the posters are bots or trolls.

User avatar
totesTheGoat

Moderator
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby totesTheGoat » Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:13 pm

SenorGato wrote:1) Punish those that are found guilty of sex crimes.


Sure, I think that's fairly universally accepted.

2) If someone is accused of a sex crime, then that person has no place in the legal system until all crimes are investigated. Not that criminal charges are necessary, however. If accusations are substantiated, then it will suffice to show the character of the individual.


This is where you fall off the rails.

"SenorGato inappropriately touched me at a law school networking event"

Are you planning on recusing yourself from the legal system now that you have been accused of a "sex crime"? What if I spiced the accusation up based on publicly available knowledge (like what would be available if you were a federal judge)?

Accusations are worthless without corroboration. 30+ year old accusations even more so. 30+ year old accusations that stink of political opportunism yet more so.

Two incidents in my past come to mind when reading your second point:

First, I remember in jr. high school that a friend of mine went around telling everybody at school that she and I were dating, going into lurid detail about this supposed relationship. Of course, first I heard about it was from one of my other friends, and I quickly addressed the situation with the girl. Imagine if she were to have felt trapped by that situation and her wishful thinking transformed into malice against me for exposing her lies. This segues directly into the second incident.

In college, I was dating a girl who had previously dated a friend of mine. He and I weren't on the best of terms because of that, and he decided to text me to gloat that he was still screwing her. When I confronted her, she immediately cried rape. She said that she just went out for a drink with him and he took advantage of her when she was a bit drunk. Of course, he had screenshotted their entire conversation that showed how she was flirting with him for a couple weeks and went to visit him specifically to have sex with him. Before I received those screenshots, we were thisclose to calling the cops on him (I actually did consult with a cop on the situation to see what to do since she told me she was afraid to report it because she was drinking underage).

Needless to say, mere accusations don't cut it for me anymore. People will say the most disgusting things to get what they want and to avoid responsibility for their mistakes.

3) I wouldn't be against federal legislation concerning this issue.


What issue? The issue of alleged unreported state crimes from 30 years ago? It's already illegal to sexually harass and assault people. What, exactly, do you want? No statute of limitations? Elimination of due process for sexual crimes? A "sex accusations" registry for people who weren't criminally convicted?

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby QContinuum » Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:41 pm

To be clear, I think SenorGato's proposal ("If someone is accused of a sex crime, then that person has no place in the legal system until all crimes are investigated.") goes too far.

That said, I also strongly disagree with totes' post.

totesTheGoat wrote:
SenorGato wrote:2) If someone is accused of a sex crime, then that person has no place in the legal system until all crimes are investigated. Not that criminal charges are necessary, however. If accusations are substantiated, then it will suffice to show the character of the individual.


Accusations are worthless without corroboration. 30+ year old accusations even more so. 30+ year old accusations that stink of political opportunism yet more so.


  • Crimes are prosecuted every day without corroboration. Let's say someone robs you at knifepoint in an alley. You hand over all the cash you have. You can identify the perp, but there are no witnesses (except the perp's accomplice) and no security cameras. The perp, naturally, denies holding you up. So does his accomplice. Should the perp get off just because there's no "corroboration" of the attack?
  • So maybe you don't come forward. Although you were held up at knifepoint, you weren't actually knifed. You don't want to disrupt your life more than it already has been. Thirty years later, the perp makes the news: He's a leading candidate for mayor of your city. Are you now gagged from disclosing how this aspiring mayor once held you up at knifepoint?

totesTheGoat wrote:First, I remember in jr. high school that a friend of mine went around telling everybody at school that she and I were dating, going into lurid detail about this supposed relationship. Of course, first I heard about it was from one of my other friends, and I quickly addressed the situation with the girl. Imagine if she were to have felt trapped by that situation and her wishful thinking transformed into malice against me for exposing her lies. This segues directly into the second incident.


So in other words, your friend never accused you of any sexual misconduct.

totesTheGoat wrote:In college, I was dating a girl who had previously dated a friend of mine. He and I weren't on the best of terms because of that, and he decided to text me to gloat that he was still screwing her. When I confronted her, she immediately cried rape. She said that she just went out for a drink with him and he took advantage of her when she was a bit drunk. Of course, he had screenshotted their entire conversation that showed how she was flirting with him for a couple weeks and went to visit him specifically to have sex with him. Before I received those screenshots, we were thisclose to calling the cops on him (I actually did consult with a cop on the situation to see what to do since she told me she was afraid to report it because she was drinking underage).


So in other words, the originator of the false claim did not want to report the incident to law enforcement and certainly did not want an investigation.

User avatar
totesTheGoat

Moderator
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

Postby totesTheGoat » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:13 pm

QContinuum wrote:
  • Crimes are prosecuted every day without corroboration. Let's say someone robs you at knifepoint in an alley. You hand over all the cash you have. You can identify the perp, but there are no witnesses (except the perp's accomplice) and no security cameras. The perp, naturally, denies holding you up. So does his accomplice. Should the perp get off just because there's no "corroboration" of the attack?


I highly doubt that's ever even making it past the "taking a report" phase. I have a BIL whose car was stolen. He found it in the parking lot of an apartment complex a couple streets over, filled with obviously stolen electronics. He flagged down a cop that was driving by and explained his situation, asking whether the cop could sit on the car for a little while to figure out who stole it. The cop laughed and suggested that he drive the car back to his house. When asked about the stolen electronics, the cop pointed to the dumpster at the other end of the apartment building.

If they can't be bothered to investigate a "minor" felony with all that physical evidence sitting right there in front of them, I'm extremely skeptical that they'd even waste a moment investigating a mugging based on nothing more than a victim statement.

  • So maybe you don't come forward. Although you were held up at knifepoint, you weren't actually knifed. You don't want to disrupt your life more than it already has been. Thirty years later, the perp makes the news: He's a leading candidate for mayor of your city. Are you now gagged from disclosing how this aspiring mayor once held you up at knifepoint?


  • QContinuum held me at knifepoint and stole $120 cash from me. I don't remember exactly where this happened, or exactly when it happened, but it was when I was in high school. Even though QContinuum has never been investigated or charged for this mugging, I would hope that QContinuum's employer would take QContinuum's obvious lack of character into account during their meeting next week deciding whether or not QContinuum makes partner.

    (EDIT: I hope that it's crystal clear that the "accusations" I'm throwing around in this thread are obvious parodies meant to highlight how easy it is to lie about being a victim when your accusations are placed under zero scrutiny)

    Obviously, nothing should be done to stop people from making accusations, but the reaction to the accusations should be aligned with the context of those accusations.


    totesTheGoat wrote:In college, I was dating a girl who had previously dated a friend of mine. He and I weren't on the best of terms because of that, and he decided to text me to gloat that he was still screwing her. When I confronted her, she immediately cried rape. She said that she just went out for a drink with him and he took advantage of her when she was a bit drunk. Of course, he had screenshotted their entire conversation that showed how she was flirting with him for a couple weeks and went to visit him specifically to have sex with him. Before I received those screenshots, we were thisclose to calling the cops on him (I actually did consult with a cop on the situation to see what to do since she told me she was afraid to report it because she was drinking underage).


    So in other words, the originator of the false claim did not want to report the incident to law enforcement and certainly did not want an investigation.


    There is more contemporaneous evidence of a sexual assault for the situation I was involved in (a log of, and possibly a recording of, the call I made to the non-emergency line of the local PD within a week of the event happening) than there is being lobbed at Mr. Kavanaugh. If the former friend of mine were to get into a position of power, and if the girl is still of low enough character to continue lying about things, he could quite possibly have his career torpedoed by her. Imagine how fast Mr. Kavanaugh would be pulled if Ms. Ford could point to a recording from the local PD showing that she inquired about reporting a sexual assault less than a week after the party in question.

    QContinuum

    Moderator
    Posts: 733
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby QContinuum » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:04 pm

    totesTheGoat wrote:
    QContinuum wrote:Crimes are prosecuted every day without corroboration. Let's say someone robs you at knifepoint in an alley. You hand over all the cash you have. You can identify the perp, but there are no witnesses (except the perp's accomplice) and no security cameras. The perp, naturally, denies holding you up. So does his accomplice. Should the perp get off just because there's no "corroboration" of the attack?


    I highly doubt that's ever even making it past the "taking a report" phase. I have a BIL whose car was stolen. He found it in the parking lot of an apartment complex a couple streets over, filled with obviously stolen electronics. He flagged down a cop that was driving by and explained his situation, asking whether the cop could sit on the car for a little while to figure out who stole it. The cop laughed and suggested that he drive the car back to his house. When asked about the stolen electronics, the cop pointed to the dumpster at the other end of the apartment building.

    If they can't be bothered to investigate a "minor" felony with all that physical evidence sitting right there in front of them, I'm extremely skeptical that they'd even waste a moment investigating a mugging based on nothing more than a victim statement.


    You're shifting the goalposts. Your original assertion - to which I was responding - was:

    totesTheGoat wrote:Accusations are worthless without corroboration.


    That's clearly a normative claim that uncorroborated crimes are effectively not crimes at all (since "accusations are worthless"). That's what I'm disputing.

    totesTheGoat wrote:QContinuum held me at knifepoint and stole $120 cash from me. I don't remember exactly where this happened, or exactly when it happened, but it was when I was in high school. Even though QContinuum has never been investigated or charged for this mugging, I would hope that QContinuum's employer would take QContinuum's obvious lack of character into account during their meeting next week deciding whether or not QContinuum makes partner.


    Well, are you willing to swear to the allegations under oath to law enforcement? Did you pass a polygraph administered by a retired FBI agent? Are you actively agitating for a full investigation? Does your story include the unhelpful (to you) element that a close friend of mine was an accomplice in the alleged mugging? Did you disclose the mugging to a therapist over half a decade ago, well before you knew I'd be considered for partnership?

    And if the answers to all of the above questions are "yes," do you expect my employer would nevertheless "plow right through," adhering to an artificial deadline for making me a partner? Or do you think it far more likely that my employer would postpone the partnership meeting for at least a week or two to see how the dust settles, given the gravity of the alleged crime?

    And even if you think my employer would brush off all of the above (and no sane employer would), do you still think nothing would change if two other people - people who didn't know you - then came forward, making similar allegations? Do you not think this might start establishing a pattern of behavior?

    totesTheGoat wrote:
    QContinuum wrote:So in other words, the originator of the false claim did not want to report the incident to law enforcement and certainly did not want an investigation.


    There is more contemporaneous evidence of a sexual assault for the situation I was involved in (a log of, and possibly a recording of, the call I made to the non-emergency line of the local PD within a week of the event happening) than there is being lobbed at Mr. Kavanaugh. If the former friend of mine were to get into a position of power, and if the girl is still of low enough character to continue lying about things, he could quite possibly have his career torpedoed by her. Imagine how fast Mr. Kavanaugh would be pulled if Ms. Ford could point to a recording from the local PD showing that she inquired about reporting a sexual assault less than a week after the party in question.


    I note you fail to address my point, which is that the originator of the false claim in your story did not want to report the alleged incident and certainly was not agitating for an investigation. Quite the opposite: When you tried to report her allegation, she actively tried to dissuade you from doing so. Your former friend, unlike Dr. Ford, was never willing to put her money where her mouth was by exposing herself to legal liability for her allegations.

    User avatar
    totesTheGoat

    Moderator
    Posts: 849
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby totesTheGoat » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:22 pm

    QContinuum wrote:And even if you think my employer would brush off all of the above (and no sane employer would), do you still think nothing would change if two other people - people who didn't know you - then came forward, making similar allegations? Do you not think this might start establishing a pattern of behavior?


    Honestly, cutting through all of the rhetoric and hypotheticals, I think something probably happened to her at a party, but she was so blitzed out of her mind that she can't remember much more than drunken glimpses of that night. I also think that she has either decided that it's for the greater good to blame Kavanaugh, despite not truly knowing the identity of her assailant, or has legitimately convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh, again despite not truly knowing who the guy was.

    Regarding the other allegations, I think that the Democrats have no issue shoving a microphone in front of anybody tangentially connected to Kavanaugh as long as they're crazy or unprincipled enough to muddy the waters with their accusations. The "blue wave" is coming in a couple months, and if they can derail this nomination, they can retake the Senate before Trump can put another person up for a vote. Flip the parties, and I'd still be skeptical. If the GOP were lobbing decades' old accusations at a high-level Dem politician/appointee (e.g. Bill Clinton), I'd have a hard time believing them without corroboration.

    The main difference between being up for partner and being up for a SCOTUS nomination is that there is no national political machine doing everything they can to prevent you making partner.

    totesTheGoat wrote:Your former friend, unlike Dr. Ford, was never willing to put her money where her mouth was by exposing herself to legal liability for her allegations.


    She has 25 more years to change her mind. Her alleged rapist also isn't up for a SCOTUS nomination.

    QContinuum

    Moderator
    Posts: 733
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby QContinuum » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:50 pm

    totesTheGoat wrote:Honestly, cutting through all of the rhetoric and hypotheticals


    I see you're not actually disputing anything I said above. In fact, I suspect you agree that no sane employer would proceed full speed ahead in the face of such allegations. You just don't think the normal rules should apply to Kavanaugh.

    totesTheGoat wrote:I think something probably happened to her at a party, but she was so blitzed out of her mind that she can't remember much more than drunken glimpses of that night. I also think that she has either decided that it's for the greater good to blame Kavanaugh, despite not truly knowing the identity of her assailant, or has legitimately convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh, again despite not truly knowing who the guy was.


    Okay, so you think she's "decided that it's for the greater good" to falsely accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault. You think this based on... what, exactly? Based on Kavanaugh's eagerness for a full investigation to show she's lying? His lawsuit against her for defamation? His glee that she'll face criminal liability for making false statements to the Senate and/or law enforcement? His plan to have his friend Mark Judge - the only alleged witness - testify under oath to support him?

    Oh wait. Kav's done none of the above. He says he wants to clear his name, yet isn't calling for a robust investigation to debunk Ford's allegations. He isn't suing her for defamation. He isn't calling for Judge to testify under oath. He's acting exactly like your former friend did when she lied about her sexual assault: He doesn't want this looked into.

    On the other side, Ford is eager - in fact, demanding - a full investigation. She's eager to swear to the allegations under oath. She's already passed a polygraph administered by a retired FBI agent.

    So what're you basing your conclusion - that Ford's a liar - on?

    totesTheGoat wrote:Regarding the other allegations, I think that the Democrats have no issue shoving a microphone in front of anybody tangentially connected to Kavanaugh as long as they're crazy or unprincipled enough to muddy the waters with their accusations.


    Okay, even assuming the Dems are that morally bankrupt (which I think is a crazy assumption to make, but whatever) - even assuming that, what would make these women willing to risk substantial civil and criminal liability by making false claims? Even beyond the liability factor, there's the personal and professional fallout. If Ford's found to be lying about something as high-profile as this, do you think Stanford would keep her around? That the US Government wouldn't revoke Swetnick's clearances?

    totesTheGoat wrote:The "blue wave" is coming in a couple months, and if they can derail this nomination, they can retake the Senate before Trump can put another person up for a vote.


    FiveThirtyEight puts Dems' chances of retaking the Senate at less than 1 in 3. The smart money's on McConnell staying on as majority leader until January 2021.

    Not to mention, if Kav goes down, one, the Reps might be able to confirm someone else pre-midterms. Trump has the FedSoc list, after all, and he's already interviewed several other candidates from that list. Even if they don't confirm someone pre-midterms, and even if the Reps actually lose the Senate, do you seriously think McConnell and Trump will hesitate to ram through a second nominee before the new Senate is seated in January?

    totesTheGoat wrote:The main difference between being up for partner and being up for a SCOTUS nomination is that there is no national political machine doing everything they can to prevent you making partner.


    No, the main difference between being up for partner and being up for SCOTUS is that our standards should be much higher for SCOTUS. Who cares if a random partner at a law firm is an upstanding character? At worst, s/he only hurts the firm, and if they are really bad, s/he can always be de-equitized and fired - something that isn't a realistic possibility for an unethical Justice, given the requirement of a 2/3rds vote in the Senate.

    User avatar
    totesTheGoat

    Moderator
    Posts: 849
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby totesTheGoat » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:44 pm

    QContinuum wrote: In fact, I suspect you agree that no sane employer would proceed full speed ahead in the face of such allegations. You just don't think the normal rules should apply to Kavanaugh.


    I'm not going to go point by point with you because I don't have the rest of the afternoon to waste. I didn't answer the question because my answer isn't very PC, but since you're pushing me on it, here it is: I don't think they'd give a shit. I think they'd laugh her out of the room if she tried to torpedo a partner's chances with an unsupported 35 year old accusation of drunken groping at a high school party. I think they'd probably believe that she's mentally unbalanced, and any hesitation to support partnership would be because the candidate comes with baggage of a lunatic following him around trying to sabotage his career.

    Here's the thing, though. This is still an apples to oranges comparison. This isn't about becoming a partner at a law firm. This is about becoming the swing vote on the SCOTUS. The last accuser to go after a SCOTUS justice (and not even the swing vote SCOTUS justice) received elite jobs, accolades, book deals, and lots of money. To wholly dismiss the idea that Dr. Ford may be motivated by getting the Anita Hill treatment seems naive.

    And by the way, the Democrats are that morally bankrupt. The GOP isn't much better, but Sen. Feinstein's 11th hour timing of the public release of the accusation shows how morally bankrupt they are. If she gave two shits about victims of sexual violence, she would've publicized it the instant she received it.

    I really don't care whether or not Kav gets confirmed. He's squishy on the 4th and 5th Amendments, has unsavory connections to the Patriot Act, and he was one of the worse candidates on the FedSoc list. However, I really don't like the idea that 30 year old accusations can be trotted out 11th hour with no contemporaneous evidence, and we're supposed to believe her and torpedo the nomination because the allegation is sexual in nature. As the Iron Law dictates: me today, you tomorrow. This will become a common tactic if it's successful today.

    QContinuum

    Moderator
    Posts: 733
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby QContinuum » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:07 pm

    totesTheGoat wrote:I'm not going to go point by point with you because I don't have the rest of the afternoon to waste. I didn't answer the question because my answer isn't very PC, but since you're pushing me on it, here it is: I don't think they'd give a shit. I think they'd laugh her out of the room if she tried to torpedo a partner's chances with an unsupported 35 year old accusation of drunken groping at a high school party. I think they'd probably believe that she's mentally unbalanced, and any hesitation to support partnership would be because the candidate comes with baggage of a lunatic following him around trying to sabotage his career.


    You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The accusation isn't "unsupported"; the allegation is of kidnapping, battery and attempted rape, not "drunken groping." It's remarkable that you're willing to call Dr. Ford a "mentally unbalanced" "lunatic following [Kavanaugh] around trying to sabotage his career." Not even Kavanaugh has been willing to go that far.

    totesTheGoat wrote:Here's the thing, though. This is still an apples to oranges comparison. This isn't about becoming a partner at a law firm. This is about becoming the swing vote on the SCOTUS. The last accuser to go after a SCOTUS justice (and not even the swing vote SCOTUS justice) received elite jobs, accolades, book deals, and lots of money. To wholly dismiss the idea that Dr. Ford may be motivated by getting the Anita Hill treatment seems naive.


    You're seriously suggesting Anita Hill benefited from 1991?

    totesTheGoat wrote:And by the way, the Democrats are that morally bankrupt. The GOP isn't much better, but Sen. Feinstein's 11th hour timing of the public release of the accusation shows how morally bankrupt they are. If she gave two shits about victims of sexual violence, she would've publicized it the instant she received it.


    In your opinion, Sen. Feinstein should've demonstrated her concern for victims of sexual violence by immediately breaking her promise of confidentiality and "outing" Dr. Ford against her will?

    totesTheGoat wrote:As the Iron Law dictates: me today, you tomorrow. This will become a common tactic if it's successful today.


    I'm not afraid of the possibility of facing a false sexual violence allegation during Senate confirmation. No innocent man (or woman) should be. The response is simple: Demand a fair and unbiased investigation. The liar will either recant or be exposed.

    User avatar
    totesTheGoat

    Moderator
    Posts: 849
    Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby totesTheGoat » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:31 pm

    QContinuum wrote: It's remarkable that you're willing to call Dr. Ford a "mentally unbalanced" "lunatic following [Kavanaugh] around trying to sabotage his career." Not even Kavanaugh has been willing to go that far.


    I did no such thing. I said that would be the perception in a law firm if some member of the public were to levy a 35 year old uninvestigated allegation at a partner candidate.

    You're seriously suggesting Anita Hill benefited from 1991?


    Yup.

    In your opinion, Sen. Feinstein should've demonstrated her concern for victims of sexual violence by immediately breaking her promise of confidentiality and "outing" Dr. Ford against her will?


    Again with putting words in my mouth. Where did I say she had to out Dr. Ford? If she had come out and said in July that she had received a credible accusation of sexual misconduct, I might have some modicum of respect for this process.

    I'm not afraid of the possibility of facing a false sexual violence allegation during Senate confirmation. No innocent man (or woman) should be. The response is simple: Demand a fair and unbiased investigation. The liar will either recant or be exposed.


    I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I'm very much scared of a false allegation ruining my career. The risk is low, but the consequences are extreme. As mentioned previously, I've seen multiple women in my own personal life lie about their sexual and relationship activities to the detriment of me and other men, and I'm not about to intentionally put myself in a situation for some unprincipled person to completely screw me and my wife and daughter over for selfish reasons.

    The issue with your so-called response is that the process is the punishment in politics. If Kav assented to a 3 month thorough investigation of Ms. Ford's claims, he'd be pulled from SCOTUS consideration by the end of the day. Oh, and the investigation would quietly disappear after a few weeks. Similarly for us "regular folk", the headache of dealing with something like a full investigation into a (time-barred) claim from decades ago simply isn't worth it. I'd rather tell the person to fuck off and continue with my life than battle her in some sort of idiotic quest for justice. It's on the accuser to initiate the investigation, not on the accused.

    QContinuum

    Moderator
    Posts: 733
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby QContinuum » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:15 pm

    totesTheGoat wrote:I did no such thing. I said that would be the perception in a law firm if some member of the public were to levy a 35 year old uninvestigated allegation at a partner candidate.


    Okay, so you're saying your hypothetical is totally different and unrelated to Ford/Kavanaugh. In that case, I'm not sure how it helps us to compare a single "unsupported 35 year old accusation of drunken groping at a high school party" to Dr. Ford's allegations (further buttressed by other women coming forward with similar allegations). I'll agree that your hypothetical of a single, unsupported, vague, dated groping accusation would not (and likely should not) be considered credible, standing alone.

    totesTheGoat wrote:
    QContinuum wrote:You're seriously suggesting Anita Hill benefited from 1991?

    Yup.


    Do you have any evidence for this remarkable allegation?

    totesTheGoat wrote:
    QContinuum wrote:In your opinion, Sen. Feinstein should've demonstrated her concern for victims of sexual violence by immediately breaking her promise of confidentiality and "outing" Dr. Ford against her will?

    Again with putting words in my mouth. Where did I say she had to out Dr. Ford? If she had come out and said in July that she had received a credible accusation of sexual misconduct, I might have some modicum of respect for this process.


    But Dr. Ford expressly requested that the letter be kept confidential. Releasing the letter and "outing" the story - even with Dr. Ford's name redacted - would still have directly disregarded her wishes. Quite the opposite of demonstrating "concern for victims of sexual violence."

    totesTheGoat wrote:I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I'm very much scared of a false allegation ruining my career. The risk is low, but the consequences are extreme.


    It seems to me that the potential consequence is that Kavanaugh stays in his lifetime seat on the D.C. Circuit, the second-most powerful court in the country. It's incredible that you would characterize this as an extreme punishment.

    For you personally, I don't discount your fear, but it is simply not objectively reasonable.

    totesTheGoat wrote:As mentioned previously, I've seen multiple women in my own personal life lie about their sexual and relationship activities to the detriment of me and other men, and I'm not about to intentionally put myself in a situation for some unprincipled person to completely screw me and my wife and daughter over for selfish reasons.


    1) Why are you conflating lying about relationship status etc. with lying about kidnapping, battery and attempted rape? 2) Perhaps you should find better/more honest folks to associate with. 3) Certainly it's your choice to decline pursuing any high-profile position requiring Senate confirmation. I hope you agree no one - not me, not you, not Kavanaugh - is somehow entitled to a Supreme Court seat.

    totesTheGoat wrote:The issue with your so-called response is that the process is the punishment in politics. If Kav assented to a 3 month thorough investigation of Ms. Ford's claims, he'd be pulled from SCOTUS consideration by the end of the day.


    If President Trump were to pull Kav's nomination, he (and not Dr. Ford) would be the proximate cause of harm to Kavanaugh's career.

    Incidentally, Trump has not made any statements qualifying his support for Kav. So it's pure speculation to suggest that Trump would ding Kav if he were to request an investigation.

    Further, an FBI investigation of this allegation wouldn't take 3 months. I believe up to 2 weeks or so was the estimate I saw in the news.

    totesTheGoat wrote:Oh, and the investigation would quietly disappear after a few weeks.


    How would a reopened FBI investigation of Kavanaugh "quietly disappear after a few weeks"? Kavanaugh's fate would be one of the most newsworthy items in the country. Not remotely credible to suggest the country would simply "forget" about Kavanaugh if his confirmation vote were put off for a few weeks.

    totesTheGoat wrote:Similarly for us "regular folk", the headache of dealing with something like a full investigation into a (time-barred) claim from decades ago simply isn't worth it. I'd rather tell the person to fuck off and continue with my life than battle her in some sort of idiotic quest for justice. It's on the accuser to initiate the investigation, not on the accused.


    What do you mean by "time-barred"?

    Dr. Ford has been actively and repeatedly demanding an investigation. The Republicans have been blocking it. Unlike Grassley, McConnell, Wray and Trump, Dr. Ford doesn't have the power to order the FBI to do anything.

    If someone made a false attempted rape allegation against you, you wouldn't want to hold that person accountable?

    BlackAndOrange84

    Bronze
    Posts: 282
    Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:06 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby BlackAndOrange84 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:45 pm

    Q, Totes suggested it already, but you're clumsy attempts at fisking don't really help you make your case. Neither do your inquisitorial questioning, outraged responses, or lack of any attempt to understand what Totes is saying. If you want to have a reasoned conversation rather than just outlasting Totes by typing more and with greater outrage, cut it out, and try to hear what the other person is saying. You don't have to strawman him to hold onto your own opinion. We're lawyers here, or at least aspiring ones—try to disagree in a reasonable manner, seeing and understanding the strongest version of Totes' argument even if you disagree. This kind of "this is an obviously stupid argument, how could any reasonable person hold it" is the kind of thing that can burn your professionally if you make it a habit of thought.

    Also, Kavanaugh is a real person with a family and a life outside of being a judge. Can you really not see how approximately 1/2 of the country thinking he's a rapist (and a much higher % in Montgomery County, MD) will affect his life and that of his wife and daughters and extended family, whether he does or doesn't make it to the Court?

    ETA: Are you even a law student? Time-barred means the statute of limitations on a criminal prosecution or civil claim has run.

    QContinuum

    Moderator
    Posts: 733
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby QContinuum » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:24 pm

    BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Q, Totes suggested it already, but you're clumsy attempts at fisking don't really help you make your case. Neither do your inquisitorial questioning, outraged responses, or lack of any attempt to understand what Totes is saying. If you want to have a reasoned conversation rather than just outlasting Totes by typing more and with greater outrage, cut it out, and try to hear what the other person is saying. You don't have to strawman him to hold onto your own opinion. We're lawyers here, or at least aspiring ones—try to disagree in a reasonable manner, seeing and understanding the strongest version of Totes' argument even if you disagree. This kind of "this is an obviously stupid argument, how could any reasonable person hold it" is the kind of thing that can burn your professionally if you make it a habit of thought.


    The grandiose pontificating above tells me exactly nothing. I have made every attempt to engage in this discussion in good faith. I expressly agreed that totes' hypothetical groping allegation shouldn't blow up anyone's career. (I don't recall totes extending the reciprocal courtesy of trying to agree with any of my points.)

    I'm not the one using inflammatory, over-the-top language like "mentally unbalanced" or "baggage of a lunatic" or "I don't think they'd give a shit" or "the Democrats have no issue shoving a microphone in front of anybody" (direct totes quotes). Point me to a single instance of me using such intemperate language.

    I'm not the one who needlessly (and offensively) cast another poster as a violent criminal in a hypothetical, as totes did to me. (Why couldn't he have just used "A" and "B" or "Peter" and "Paul" in his hypo?)

    BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Also, Kavanaugh is a real person with a family and a life outside of being a judge. Can you really not see how approximately 1/2 of the country thinking he's a rapist (and a much higher % in Montgomery County, MD) will affect his life and that of his wife and daughters and extended family, whether he does or doesn't make it to the Court?


    When have I ever questioned Kavanaugh's humanity?

    BlackAndOrange84 wrote:ETA: Are you even a law student? Time-barred means the statute of limitations on a criminal prosecution or civil claim has run.


    Thank you for the Law School 101 refresher. I was asking because totes was clearly not using time-barred in the above sense. Per media reports, at least some of the alleged crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations in Maryland.

    BlackAndOrange84

    Bronze
    Posts: 282
    Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:06 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby BlackAndOrange84 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:50 pm

    LOL. Just LOL. Not gonna engage.

    MASH_Law

    New
    Posts: 16
    Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:35 pm

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby MASH_Law » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:56 pm

    American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

    The American Bar Association is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the consideration of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation is completed into the sexual assault allegations that have roiled his nomination.


    https://www.abc15.com/news/national/ame ... llegations

    drillteam

    New
    Posts: 16
    Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:54 pm

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby drillteam » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:05 pm

    ABA as such did not call for a delay. That was the president Carlson going off on his own, timed for maximum news effect. The Standing Committee on Judicial Nominations said they had not seen the letter before it was sent and their rating of Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Carlson's letter

    QContinuum

    Moderator
    Posts: 733
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

    Re: Yale Law School's Reckoning over Brett Kavanaugh

    Postby QContinuum » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:06 pm

    drillteam wrote:ABA as such did not call for a delay. That was the president Carlson going off on his own


    My understanding is that the ABA President was speaking on behalf of the ABA, as he is empowered to do. If you disagree, can you point me to a reputable article stating that Carlson went rogue?

    drillteam wrote:The Standing Committee on Judicial Nominations said they had not seen the letter before it was sent and their rating of Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Carlson's letter


    The letter does not purport to affect or modify Kavanaugh's rating, so I'm not seeing any conflict between Carlson and the committee.



    Return to “Legal News/Law Firm Gossip?

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest