Judging the Mitchell Report

[Town Heretic]

Believe the woman.

Like you, I don't believe that's a fair premise. Wasn't mine. Shouldn't be anyone's who is interested in the truth. You believe the more believable, if you have to and testimony is all you have. That didn't have to be the case here, but the Committee decided to limit it to that and lawyer letters, introduced exhibits which reduced to testimonials of sorts.

Has Dr. Ford been 'believed' in this case, by our elected officials;

Members on both sides of the committee, and the president declared her testimony compelling. Even the accused said he thought something traumatic happened to her, but it just wasn't him.

So it lives or dies on the "him" part for her and his testimony in response. She was emphatic about remembering him. Her husband has said she named him long before his nomination. He says it never happened.

Now, due to this process, we've come to learn more about Judge Kavanaugh personally, and how he handles himself under some duress, either being falsely accused of a thing, or of hoping to survive a just accusation, and so he may not make it through, for a different reason than why we might have thought, back at the beginning of this seeming debacle.

That's certainly problematic for him. On the singular point I thought they both delivered believable testimony. He got into trouble outside of his denial and I'm not sure it won't sink him.

I think that our elected officials have been given a fair chance to determine their final decision, and I think the forthcoming FBI report on their additional investigation is being even more than fair also, so I'll support whatever they decide, given their closer proximity to the thing.

I think that at the very least, the other alleged person in the room should have been compelled to give testimony. I'd also have had the husband there for cross. And every alleged material witness. Not that many, really, but we could have heard them and read them and so could the committee. I think it was a serious error of omission.

 

[Jonahdog]

TH, rational thought rarely works here. But nice try.

 

[Town Heretic]

How could anyone with an open mind actually believer her testimony from decades ago since she cannot remember things from just a few weeks ago?

Anyone who has been cross examined by someone during a stressful period. Everyone thinks they can kill at Jeopardy until the lights go on and the cameras focus. Then the ease of a living room gives way to stresses that can leave knowledgeable people feeling like momentary idiots.

She couldn't remember the day she took the polygraph. It might have been the day of her grandmother's funeral or it could have been on another day.

She couldn't remember who advised her to take the polygraph.

She couldn't remember who paid for the polygraph.

She was told that Grassley would send the investigators to her but she forgot that.

Why would she commit the day of the polygraph to long term memory?

She knew she had attorney's handling details like the set up of the poly and she knew there were efforts to raise money to pay for expenses related to the hearing. She said as much. I suspect she was grateful for that degree of handling given the stress she was under.

The only evidence she has in regard to her accusations against Kavanaugh is her "memory" but even her own long time friend disputes what Dr. Ford "remembered."

What friend and in what particular? All I've read is that the named parties don't recall the party, and why would they? Absent immediate knowledge of a thing that would make it stand out it's at best just one night among many decades ago. I'd be suspicious if someone said, "Oh, I recall that night. Nothing like that happened."

Since you have considered her testimony tell us why anyone in their right mind can believe that her memory of what happened in the '80s can be believed as being accurate since she admits that she can't even remember many things that happened just a short time ago.

Anyone is a tough sell. I, like many republicans and the president himself, found her testimony compelling. I left confident that she believed the narrative she was telling the committee. Not even the man accused has said otherwise. Before this all began I supported Kavanaugh's nomination. The ABA gave him high marks and his acumen seem uncontested. That and the sitting president's desire were really all that I needed absent some intervening reason why I or anyone should change their mind.

I found her testimony in line with who knows how many people I've examined in situations very similar if more immediate than the one in question. I was a VAWA lawyer for a number of years earlier in my practice as a poverty lawyer. In that capacity, covering several counties (five, if memory serves me without listing them) and numerous shelters. And in my larger practice, some of which I've related, where witnesses to even immediate events recalled the darndest details and missed things that you'd wonder at, even to the point of getting chronology wrong when they were literally a part of an accident. It happens.

One thing people didn't understand about Mitchel that I meant to bring up earlier. She has been criticized for suddenly concentrating on side bar questions and odd minutia. I can tell you that wasn't a sign of incompetence. It was, rather, a calculated move on her part to accomplish two things. The first was to test on points of memory that might give insight into her frame of mind and/or capacity. The second and more important thing she was doing involved interrupting the narrative, if it was scripted. She wanted to throw Ford off her mark, if she was on it. Mitchell was a little handicapped in this by time constraints, but Ford was handling that well enough that Mitchell left it eventually, if only toward the end.

Sometimes in order to determine the truth a person has to use a little common sense.

I agree, though that can be misleading when the person exercising it doesn't understand things important in a consideration, long and short term memory and how it works, what's unusual in omission and what's consistent with an unscripted recollection of facts, even one refreshed. Cross and direct examinations are an art form of sorts. It takes years to become accomplished at it. Mitchell is actually pretty good.

 

[Town Heretic]

WE all did consider her testimony, Town Heretic.

I don't know if WE did that at all. But I'm certain I did. I'm certain that I went through the prosecutor's memo in the same spirit and with the same thoroughness. I've demonstrated some of that here.

I spent all her testimony glued to the TV. I heard every single word she said. I was so hoping that someone she provided as witnesses (because they saw/knew? something), including her long life friend, would have corroborated any of her allegations. None did.

How could they? The only people she told were her therapist and husband, at the outset of moving toward this. Her husband has supported her narrative. The prosecutor decided to, without examination, suggest he was misremembering based on Kavanaugh's name possibly coming up in his line of sight when Romney was a candidate for the presidency. . . Her lifelong friend has, however, said that she believes Dr. Ford.

She provided the 'allegation' and the witnesses, Town Heretic. You or I did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Democrats did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Republicans did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses either.

Rather, she gave testimony. No witnesses were allowed at the hearing. They should have been. They should have been called to be examined directly and given the eye test during their answers. It makes a difference in both the credibility of their testimony and, sometimes, in what they actually end up saying.

Any trial lawyer understands this and the prosecutor is a skilled attorney.

Dr. Ford alone provided the 'allegation' and her witnesses and none corroborated what she said.

Untrue. Her husband corroborated her naming him. He wasn't called. The people who have no particular reason to remember the particular party unsurprisingly didn't remember it. The two people who would, but who would stand to lose profoundly if the narrative was true said, "It wasn't me" and "I don't remember any such party." The second one surprised me. I expected Judge to say, as Kavanaugh had, that it never happened. He didn't. He said he didn't recall it. That's remarkable when you think about it for its lack of finality and rebuttal.

I did not hear Judge Kavanaugh's defense though.

You should look it up. On the issue itself he was excellent. Then he undermined the effort on a few fronts.

 

[Idolater]

Like you, I don't believe that's a fair premise.

What I tried to explain was that we are changing into people whose only alternative to rock solid evidence like video footage, is the supposed victims' testimonies, and we need to treat those testimonies with great interest and care, from whomever they are, or what they're claiming that whoever did to them.

iow in another world, Dr. Ford's complaint might have simply been dismissed by 'the patriarchy,' and Judge Kavanaugh would already have been sized for his new digs. But in this '#MeToo' world, despite the lack of video evidence, we are becoming more and more careful to take such accusations seriously. Seriously enough, in this case, that we've got not much else happening in some parts of Congress until this process is completed.

iow again, in the lack of video surveillance, 'Believe the Woman' means essentially, 'look at the video.' At the very least look at it. Watch it. Observe it and study it. Is there anything there? Is it worth following, is it worth investigating further, is this credible or believable or what.

Did we do this, through our elected officials, did we, in this case, 'Believe the Woman?' Of course it doesn't mean all other principles of determining facts go out the window, but did we at the very least give the supposed victim's testimony a thorough 'viewing?' Were we fair to Dr. Ford?

To me, it appears that we've been, and I repeat myself wrt this additional FBI investigation, more than fair with her. I think that we through our elected officials have seen the 'footage' and have had time to 'rewind' and rewatch it, and inquire about it and about things, and also we have seen more of Judge Kavanaugh's character, as a bonus, so I think that their vote will be legitimate. I'm confident that all things considered they'll make the right choice, whatever choice they happen to make.

Wasn't mine. Shouldn't be anyone's who is interested in the truth. You believe the more believable, if you have to and testimony is all you have.

I've said my piece here above, but it was Dr. Ford's side that appeared confused, and Judge Kavanaugh's that was more congruent, but I wonder if we're not subconsciously handicapping Ford a little bit, since she's up against an accomplished lawyer and judge, who's used to wordsmithing and massaging and sculpting his message, even in very grave situations. So all other things being equal, we might expect him to be more believable than her. If we are in fact handicapping her here, then we're being even more than more than fair, I believe.

That didn't have to be the case here, but the Committee decided to limit it to that and lawyer letters, introduced exhibits which reduced to testimonials of sorts.



Members on both sides of the committee, and the president declared her testimony compelling. Even the accused said he thought something traumatic happened to her, but it just wasn't him.

So it lives or dies on the "him" part for her and his testimony in response. She was emphatic about remembering him. Her husband has said she named him long before his nomination. He says it never happened.

I've been a victim of mistaken identity myself. I can tell you the utter futility and impotence you can feel. In my case my accuser no doubt had some traumatic or upsetting thing happen, and I didn't do it, but they were smaller than me, and intimidated by me as well. There was literally nothing I could do to prove my innocence. Nothing. I had to hope that people believed my own testimony, and it was only my character leading up to this trouble that wound up . . . not vindicating me, but permitting me to evade any further penalty. I can't say that everybody felt confident in my innocence, but it was relieving, that I wasn't further penalized, for doing nothing wrong.

I know that being a victim of 'framing' is a tough situation to be in, but mistaken identity might in some ways be even worse, because the accuser is not lying; they really believe what they're saying. They are 100% credible and believable, since they do not even know they are wrong.

That's certainly problematic for him. On the singular point I thought they both delivered believable testimony. He got into trouble outside of his denial and I'm not sure it won't sink him.


I think that at the very least, the other alleged person in the room should have been compelled to give testimony. I'd also have had the husband there for cross. And every alleged material witness. Not that many, really, but we could have heard them and read them and so could the committee. I think it was a serious error of omission.

I think we got a fair look at this particular 'video footage' here, 'rewound' it a few times and 'rewatched' it. What you're suggesting sounds more like a criminal trial to me, but ianal and I defer to your credentials and experience on the matter.

All I need is someone who will obey the law wrt the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding; and frankly it doesn't have to be Kavanaugh.

 

[Town Heretic]

What I tried to explain was that we are changing into people whose only alternative to rock solid evidence like video footage, is the supposed victims' testimonies, and we need to treat those testimonies with great interest and care, from whomever they are, or what they're claiming that whoever did to them.

I'm not sure I agree with that...I think that in the social sense we accept far too easily what matches our bias and you can find jackassery of that sort in virtually any FB feed, where unsupportable memes abound.

In a hearing of this sort, testimony is about all you're going to have. And yes, we must be careful in approaching and considering it.

iow in another world, Dr. Ford's complaint might have simply been dismissed by 'the patriarchy,' and Judge Kavanaugh would already have been sized for his new digs. But in this '#MeToo' world, despite the lack of video evidence, we are becoming more and more careful to take such accusations seriously. Seriously enough, in this case, that we've got not much else happening in some parts of Congress until this process is completed.

I agree with part of that, but testimony has always been evidence and in the absence of anything else, while we likely wouldn't find the inside of a courtroom, in this setting it has to be considered and contextualized. The failing here was in not calling every party to the complaint. It's an unpardonable one that, if the judge is telling the truth, might well have helped him. Instead, he was too much at the center and other failings could well undo his nomination now.

Did we do this, through our elected officials, did we, in this case, 'Believe the Woman?' Of course it doesn't mean all other principles of determining facts go out the window, but did we at the very least give the supposed victim's testimony a thorough 'viewing?' Were we fair to Dr. Ford?

Fair? The Committee wasn't. I think all we can do is listen to both and make our best judgment.

To me, it appears that we've been, and I repeat myself wrt this additional FBI investigation, more than fair with her.

I don't agree, though I agree it's better than nothing.

I think that we through our elected officials have seen the 'footage' and have had time to 'rewind' and rewatch it, and inquire about it and about things, and also we have seen more of Judge Kavanaugh's character, as a bonus, so I think that their vote will be legitimate. I'm confident that all things considered they'll make the right choice, whatever choice they happen to make.

All we can do is take what's on the table and make of it what our conscience demands, both on the point of contention and on the larger argument about temperament and conduct related.

I've said my piece here above, but it was Dr. Ford's side that appeared confused, and Judge Kavanaugh's that was more congruent, but I wonder if we're not subconsciously handicapping Ford a little bit, since she's up against an accomplished lawyer and judge, who's used to wordsmithing and massaging and sculpting his message, even in very grave situations.

The odd thing about the whole business was I expected, if she was telling the truth, an awkwardness and a relating of a narrative that inexperienced laymen might mistake through no fault of their own. I found McConnell's floor speech a blatant attempt to mislead and move people without that experience. He's a lawyer and knows better. We'll see how it shakes out.

So all other things being equal, we might expect him to be more believable than her.

I would have expected him to be appropriately polished, and as a jurist who has watched enough effective testimony, to be able and ready on the point. And I think he was, though I wouldn't say for that he was more convincing, only that he was believable. They both were. So the settling had to be found elsewhere and for me, to some extent it was.

I've been a victim of mistaken identity myself.

It happens. It doesn't tend to happen in situations like this, where the alleged assailant is known to the individual and the setting is far different.

I can tell you the utter futility and impotence you can feel. In my case my accuser no doubt had some traumatic or upsetting thing happen, and I didn't do it, but they were smaller than me, and intimidated by me as well. There was literally nothing I could do to prove my innocence. Nothing. I had to hope that people believed my own testimony, and it was only my character leading up to this trouble that wound up . . . not vindicating me, but permitting me to evade any further penalty. I can't say that everybody felt confident in my innocence, but it was relieving, that I wasn't further penalized, for doing nothing wrong.

Well, I'm glad that it worked out then.

I know that being a victim of 'framing' is a tough situation to be in, but mistaken identity might in some ways be even worse, because the accuser is not lying; they really believe what they're saying. They are 100% credible and believable, since they do not even know they are wrong.

And again, that happens, but it doesn't tend to in circumstances like this narrative. It's not a stranger, a fleeting encounter, a darkened one, or at distance, any number of variables that typically attend misidentification.

I think we got a fair look at this particular 'video footage' here, 'rewound' it a few times and 'rewatched' it. What you're suggesting sounds more like a criminal trial to me, but ianal and I defer to your credentials and experience on the matter.

I've tried to keep the criminal element reduced to speaking about mistaken notions in the heads of many who don't understand what standards and presumptions are set in place for and why the traditional notions of a courtroom don't and can't apply here.

 

[Idolater]

I know that being a victim of 'framing' is a tough situation to be in, but mistaken identity might in some ways be even worse, because the accuser is not lying; they really believe what they're saying. They are 100% credible and believable, since they do not even know they are wrong.

[That] happens, but it doesn't tend to in circumstances like this narrative. It's not a stranger, a fleeting encounter, a darkened one, or at distance, any number of variables that typically attend misidentification.

What about youth? Does youth typically attend misidentification? And just btw, my own accuser knew me. It wasn't a simple 'I thought it was him,' and neither distance nor darkness were factors. It was that somehow they conflated their apparent intimidation that they felt toward me, with a bona fide trauma of some sort, and falsely convinced themselves that I was the perpetrator. It was harrowing, and surprisingly humbling, being in such a helpless and unjust situation, with nothing that I could do to defend or protect myself, because I was the large person and they were the diminutive person, and they were 100% certain that I did it. It was the others involved who were the problem, since they had every reason to believe the accusation against me, just because it fit right into some trope that's in so many of our minds seemingly from birth.

 

[Idolater]

There is also the evidence that in ten years as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit his temper has never been an issue.

Not that we know. But as I said already, I'm unconvinced that a Supreme Court justice can't do a good job while at the same time losing their temper occasionally anyway.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

]Why would she commit the day of the polygraph to long term memory?

It was just a short period of time before she forgot the day she took the polygraph so why would you say anything about "long term memory"? But now evidence is coming out that she really didn't forget things but instead lied about them.

Now her old boyfriend has revealed that he witnessed her coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. So if he is right then Dr. Ford perjured herself because when she was asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, "Never."

Grassley has written a letter to Dr. Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took.

The ex-boyfriend also refuted Dr.Ford's testimony when she said that she had a fear of flying and he also said that she wasn't claustrophobic, despite her testimony that she is. As they say, "The jig is up!"

Did I remember it right that you said you were an attorney? If so, are you a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America?

 

[Town Heretic]

It was just a short period of time before she forgot the day she took the polygraph so why would you say anything about "long term memory"? But now evidence is coming out that she really didn't forget things but instead lied about them.

Because long term memory is apparently a lot closer to the moment than you realize. We dump massive amounts of information from our system, for the most part, holding onto essentials and losing things that we decide, consciously and unconsciously, aren't important enough to encode. You'd be surprised how much of the day you've forgotten by the time your head hits the pillow.

Now her old boyfriend has revealed that he witnessed her coaching a friend on polygraph examinations.

Citation to source? She's been married for the past 16 years, you know.

Grassley has written a letter to Dr. Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took.

Good. They wanted to bring in the whole thing and the expert for testimony. The Committee decided otherwise.

The ex-boyfriend also refuted Dr.Ford's testimony when she said that she had a fear of flying and he also said that she wasn't claustrophobic, despite her testimony that she is. As they say, "The jig is up!"

Rather, some uncited fellow from how long ago is allegedly claiming things. And a couple of days ago someone apparently claimed that he knew who was the actual perp for the attack on Ford. How'd that pan out?

Did I remember it right that you said you were an attorney?

Am an attorney. It's like being a doctor. You don't have to be in practice.

If so, are you a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America?

I'm not in practice at present and don't plan to be. I've had that career, with about everything you could think of, including a license to practice before the S. Ct., though I don't know that any of it particularly matters. I spent most of my career as a trial dog, fighting with someone over something. Early on in the larger part, as a poverty lawyer, it was under the VAWA grant. After that I took mostly civil actions against a variety of opponents, from predatory lenders to unscrupulous landlords. Before any of that I was a trial lawyer in criminal and civil matters. I walked away from a partnership to become poor and defend the poor. Slept like a baby.

Now I'm going to have a glorious third act teaching babies.

 

[Town Heretic]

What about youth? Does youth typically attend misidentification?

With children, sure. But with teenagers? No reason for it to. Again, mistaken identity tends to deal with unfamiliar people, distance, darkness, and other intervening factors that are not present in the circumstances considered. Either Ford is lying when she says she is certain of her attacker's identity, or she's crazy, or she's mistaken. There's no adjudication of mental incompetence on Ford's part and it doesn't seem reasonable that she's mistaken, given the circumstance. There's no reasonable factor present to account for her narrative other than its truth or falsity. Those are Occam's best bets. One of the two of them is likely lying.

And just btw, my own accuser knew me. It wasn't a simple 'I thought it was him,' and neither distance nor darkness were factors. It was that somehow they conflated their apparent intimidation that they felt toward me, with a bona fide trauma of some sort, and falsely convinced themselves that I was the perpetrator.

Sounds like an area where subjective valuations were crucial. It's like a big guy looming and someone feeling threatened when the intent wasn't in play. That happens. It rarely goes before a judge, but it can. Mostly in TRO hearings. I can't comment further without a great deal of particulars I don't have and, honestly, would rather not since we appear to be discussing a fairly exceptional anecdote.

When it comes to physical acts, subjective values are much harder to apply, though the results of actions can carry enormously potent and subjective impacts.

So you might be a drunk teen accustomed to being admired, important, friends with almost anyone you meet, and think you're getting around a few bases with a girl who sees your actions as something else entirely and finally manages to communicate that through your alcohol fog. That in turn may leave you to walk away, not being a "bad guy" in your mind, just mistaken. This might occur decades before we start to teach young men to ask first. You might not think any more about it for years and years, while the girl may leave that same situation shaken and harmed in ways you can't understand, because your context was so radically divergent.

And then it might come up when you have all but no memory of it, if even that. Until it's refreshed and the nothing, to you, suddenly takes on a different light and you see something you never realized you missed. A context at odds with the you that you've worked hard to become and the good you've done. You might be a son of privilege who on some level feels all that work and recognition is more important than sacrificing it over an honest account of a genuine and uncharacteristic mistake made by a boy.

Then you might channel the frustration and anger that generates into your narrative denial and appear genuine in it, outraged. Because you are outraged, only not at the woman, but at those who have used her to undo you, to take the opportunity that you mean to use to continue to do a real good with... Which is why you don't offer a second injury to her, choosing instead to proffer the only measure of support you can that will allow you to continue as you make your denial.

That's another possibility.

 

[Idolater]

Thanks Town. Thoughtful. :thumb:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Citation to source? She's been married for the past 16 years, you know.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing letter to Christine Blaseyt Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took, after her ex-boyfriend of six years refuted statements she made under oath last week.

Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford's, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, "Never." This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."

Ford's ex-boyfriend also claims that she never told him about any type of sexual assault in almost a decade of knowing her (of which they were romantically involved for six years).

"During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct. Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh," the ex writes, adding "While visiting Ford in Hawaii, we traveled around the Hawaiian islands including one time on a propeller plane. Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying.

Ford's ex goes on to note "Dr. Ford never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," further refuting her testimony. "She ended up living in a very small 500 sq. ft. house with one door."​

For more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...nravels-after-ex-boyfriend-refutes-key-claims​

I spent most of my career as a trial dog, fighting with someone over something.

That's what I figured--a Trial Lawyer!

 

[Town Heretic]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing letter to Christine Blaseyt Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took, after her ex-boyfriend of six years refuted statements she made under oath last week. ​

His claims should be investigated and he's another one who should be on the stand under penalty of perjury.

Ford's ex-boyfriend also claims that she never told him about any type of sexual assault in almost a decade of knowing her (of which they were romantically involved for six years).

Who corroborates the relationship? How long ago? When did her fear of flying manifest, etc. Needs a hearing. Should be heard. One more thing the Committee should address.

I should note that the letter only contained the polygraph bit and that nothing else you noted has been sworn to, so far as the letter indicates. ​

That's what I figured--a Trial Lawyer!

Sure. Proud of it. Hell of an education in the application of analytical reasoning.

 

[Idolater]

The thing is, Jerry: Kavanaugh is either a victim, or he is a thing from high school still, and it looks like we are somewhat familiar with the thing that he seems to still be. He probably married a person who was the type of person who would fraternize with the type of thing that he was, and now, it seems, he still very much is, unless, as I said, he is a victim. And if he is a victim, then what means do we have available to decide between the two, he is either a victim, or he is not a victim, and if he is not a victim, then he most certainly and absolutely is a thing from high school, and we'd be oh so much better served if we don't put that type of thing into that position.

Although since I'm one-issue (Guns) he could still be a useful idiot for me, personally, so no tragedy either way, just so long as someone's in there swinging for the fences on gun rights. The other crap just isn't as important, it's not in the same game, not on the same field. It's like Dallas Cowboys and then a bunch of peewee teams. I'm going to root for the Boys every time, and bet on them to win it, although I still couldn't bring myself to bet on the spread or the line or the over/under or any of those whatever they're called, but for sure Dallas wins each game forever. That's guns for me. Why? Because things could only get so bad, before we use them. There could only be so many violent felons, criminals, murderers and rapists here. The number of guns in the 'right hands' would so vastly outnumber the 'wrong hands,' that those 'wrong hands' would be forced to be 'right.' Just for personal safety. It'd be like #MeToo, except it means, to a murderer or rapist, 'Me Too---I am also prepared for this deliberate attempt on the lives and or persons of my family, or of my neighbor, or of another innocent person---Me Too; I'm ready too, I'm prepared, I've armed, and I know how to shoot, and I am going to protect and defend innocent people from you---Me Too; I'm ready to do something lifechanging today, just like you---Me Too---I shot you.'

The Second Amendment reads that the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, shall not be infringed. But then Governor of California Ronald Reagan presided over the making of a law that explicitly forbid the public carrying of firearms. It was racist, because it addressed a societal problem at the time prompted by black people carrying rifles, and following around police, to make sure they were doing a good job, which is why there was a problem. Do you think that outlawing the public carrying of weapons 'infringes' the "right of the people to keep and bear arms?" in your opinion?

Anyway Kavanaugh could be a useful idiot for me. If he gets in fine. If not, then I hope another person with the kind of clear-thinking record Kavanaugh has on the matter gets confirmed instead, and someone equally young, to establish the defense of the Second Amendment for some time. It's been Raped over the past 90 years or so.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sure. Proud of it. Hell of an education in the application of analytical reasoning.

I think I read somewhere that 98% of the money donated to political parties by the Trial Lawyers go to the Democrats! And they certainly don't want conservative judges on the Supreme Court!

You should ask for your money back that you paid for your education because you couldn't even figure out that anything Christine Ford said couldn't be trusted.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think I read somewhere that 98% of the money donated to political parties by the Trial Lawyers go to the Democrats!

I read somewhere that the moon is made of cheese.

More seriously, what you're likely recalling was a widely noted 2014 figure arrived at by the Center for Responsive Politics. As far as I know it's a non-partisan group so I'm inclined to believe the figures were accurate then. How much or little that would have changed by now I couldn't say. It makes sense though. Most trial lawyers making real money are in the civil end of the pool where it pays better to not have a lot of caps on awards.

And they certainly don't want conservative judges on the Supreme Court!

That's a harder sell. The main restrictive impact of the Court on them would be what at this point?

You should ask for your money back that you paid for your education because you couldn't even figure out that anything Christine Ford said couldn't be trusted.

You should sue whatever institution of higher learning taught you to argue a point if that's what you've come to.

That, or you could and then should say the same thing about nearly every sitting republican on that committee, with any number of lawyers among them, and the president. Consistency is a virtue. Especially if you're going to act like a hobgoblin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's a harder sell. The main restrictive impact of the Court on them would be what at this point?

The problem in regard to the trial lawyers is their opposition to "tort reform," and as a result the cost of liability insurance for doctors has soared and that extra cost is passed on to everyone needing health care. In fact, the sky high cost of this insurance has caused many doctors to retire early.

There should be a reasonable limit or cap placed on payments to those who have suffered malpractice at the hands of doctors.

 

[Town Heretic]

The problem in regard to the trial lawyers is their opposition to "tort reform," and as a result the cost of liability insurance for doctors has soared and that extra cost is passed on to everyone needing health care. In fact, the sky high cost of this insurance has caused many doctors to retire early.

There should be a reasonable limit or cap placed on payments to those who have suffered malpractice at the hands of doctors.

I'd agree that doctors are the best sell, though mostly its about companies that disregard the safety and wellbeing of you and me and what it takes to make them pay more attention. Ralph Nader made his bones exposing, by way of example, a certain car company's willingness to let a rough number of people die and pay their families settlements because the alternative was too expensive.

Caps are fine provided they serve their purpose, which isn't only to remedy the damage done to the individual, but to make the company take the safety of product and services as seriously as the injured party. If remedies are insufficient to manage that then you're back to the old problem. Another reason for less restrictive awards goes to the tort firm funds. Or, it takes enormous resources to successfully take on and investigate, say, a Ford about the Pinto, or a drug manufacturer and a defective product like fen-phen. Limit the awards too much and that won't happen. Companies will be effectively able to balance human cost in potential against the cost of correcting defective products.

I'd rather they hadn't that luxury.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Caps are fine provided they serve their purpose, which isn't only to remedy the damage done to the individual, but to make the company take the safety of product and services as seriously as the injured party.

There can be a "reasonable" cap that does both but the Trial Lawyers fight against anything reasonable in regard to this subject.