What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Handyman said:
This isn't a debate. Both sides say their piece and that is it. Why should he get to rebut anything? Can she then rebut his rebuttal?

Dersh is a clown and needs to go away.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with you here. It's her allegation. How is he supposed to go first without knowing what she is going to accuse him of, other than media reports about some letter she wrote?

This isn't a trial, and she's trying to make it like she has a "fair chance" to win or something. There aren't going to be any winners here.

She should come in and tell the committee what she claims he did. If he wants, or if the committee insists, Kavanaugh should be called to respond. Then make a decision.
 
SJHovey said:
I'm going to disagree with you here. It's her allegation. How is he supposed to go first without knowing what she is going to accuse him of, other than media reports about some letter she wrote?

This isn't a trial, and she's trying to make it like she has a "fair chance" to win or something. There aren't going to be any winners here.

She should come in and tell the committee what she claims he did. If he wants, or if the committee insists, Kavanaugh should be called to respond. Then make a decision.
Click to expand...

If they prefer she go first that is fine. To me both sides state their case and answer questions then all is well. Rebuttal though will give him a chance to change his story and unless she has the same right is rather unfair.

If both get a rebuttal I think it is fine otherwise I just would rather they say their piece and get grilled by the senators.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

This discussion is a little out of place in that Ford is not a party but a witness. It's also easy to confuse defense and rebuttal, as they are applied in court proceedings.

As a basic concept, though, they should both be allowed to respond to the other's testimony. IMO.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Handyman said:
Except again...this isn't a court.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but court procedures are developed for reasons of fairness.

And yeah, I realize politics are not about fairness.
 
Last edited:
burd said:
This discussion is a little out of place in that Ford is not a party but a witness. It's also easy to confuse defense and rebuttal, as they are applied in court proceedings.

As a basic concept, though, they should both be allowed to respond to the other's testimony. IMO.
Click to expand...

As long as they both do fine. That doesn't seem to be what others are saying though. Either both do or neither do.

Plus it isn't like she just says her piece and leaves. The Senators can ask her anything they want (And will) unless I am missing something. (I am working so I am getting only pieces of info so it's possible). They will be rebutting her testimony on his behalf.

We will see how it plays out I guess.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

SJHovey said:
I'm going to disagree with you here. It's her allegation. How is he supposed to go first without knowing what she is going to accuse him of, other than media reports about some letter she wrote?

This isn't a trial, and she's trying to make it like she has a "fair chance" to win or something. There aren't going to be any winners here.

She should come in and tell the committee what she claims he did. If he wants, or if the committee insists, Kavanaugh should be called to respond. Then make a decision.
Click to expand...

Hes innocent. says he was never there. said it never happened.


What could she say that would contradict his claims?


Or is he lying, and needs to know what she knows to make up another lie?
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Handyman said:
If they prefer she go first that is fine. To me both sides state their case and answer questions then all is well. Rebuttal though will give him a chance to change his story and unless she has the same right is rather unfair.

If both get a rebuttal I think it is fine otherwise I just would rather they say their piece and get grilled by the senators.
Click to expand...

My feeling is, let her testify. He then gets to respond, to basically answer the charge she levels against him.

If she says he did it and he says he didn't, no purpose is served by insisting she come back. If she says he did it, and he says no he didn't and he has an entry signed by her in his yearbook to prove it, then obviously she needs to be given a chance to respond.

This whole issue of who gets to go last reminds me of the absolute stupidity of these nightly news programs. All these idiots feel like they have to have the literal last word, otherwise they've been treated unfairly or can't "win."
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

If he has an entry in his high school yearbook from her, we'd have seen it by now.


Instead, they've spent the last three days forming this elaborate theory that she was actually attacked by a completely different person.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

rufus said:
Hes innocent. says he was never there. said it never happened.


What could she say that would contradict his claims?


Or is he lying, and needs to know what she knows to make up another lie?
Click to expand...

Those are his claims, in response to reporters questions about what the reporters think her claims are. But we don't know what she's going to say.

It's silly to think that anyone but her would testify first. We need to know exactly what she is claiming. Then they can call Kavanaugh or witnesses to see if her story can be corroborated or refuted.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

So why do you say that? If you know she's lying, if he never did what she says, then you know that nothing she could ever say will incriminate you. You know what you did and what you didn't. You either say that cause you have to in order to appear innocent, or you're innocent. There's nothing to finesse about it, no matter what she might say

The only way he needs to be prepared for what she might say is if he actually did do something like she's alleging.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

burd said:
Actually, on the subject of Ford's allegations, the ordinary (court) procedure would be to allow her to go first, he responds and she gets to rebut.
Click to expand...

I'd be good with that ... along with the sequestered while the other is speaking idea someone rolled out (applied to both).
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Other than a chairman running the show who has a political agenda, the other thing about the allegation/defense/rebuttal setup is that it implies that the person alleging misconduct has the burden of proof, which is a very convenient avenue for a judge or anyone else to say "the evidence is troubling but not conclusive, and the plaintiff has the burden of proof, so the tie goes to the defense."

Republicans will say the Dems do have the burden of proof on the Ford allegations, but if the proofs, while not conclusive, yet raise substantial doubts about his truthfulness or character they should count toward the deliberations. But I think we all know that Ford's testimony will have to be very credible for the allegations to stop the train.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Don't like the reference from before? Fine. I'll clean it out.


You're up first, mount your defense, state your case, to whatever you haven't been formally charged with yet.
Your star chamber prosecutor will present the full scope and nature, the details, of the charges against you when you're finished.
And you get no rebuttal to the charges made.


The Senate may not be a court of law; however, I can fully see why Dershowitz called the Ford proposal unAmerican. It's not how we do accusation and discovery.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

rufus said:
So why do you say that? If you know she's lying, if he never did what she says, then you know that nothing she could ever say will incriminate you. You know what you did and what you didn't. You either say that cause you have to in order to appear innocent, or you're innocent. There's nothing to finesse about it, no matter what she might say

The only way he needs to be prepared for what she might say is if he actually did do something like she's alleging.
Click to expand...

For reasons that aren't clear to me, I'll agree to type this one more time. There are no allegations from her. At least not yet. At least not that she's willing to swear to tell the truth to.

What we have is someone told the New York Times that they were told by Diane Feinstein that she received a letter which contained some allegations.

I have an idea. How about we let the woman testify. Let's hear her story. Then if Kavanaugh wants to respond, so be it. At least at that point he'll know what her story is, and anyone who wants to ask him a question will know what her story is.

All Kavanaugh has done thus far is deny what someone's cousin overheard his next-door-neighbor whisper to his dog.
 
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The Sicatoka said:
I'd be good with that ... along with the sequestered while the other is speaking idea someone rolled out (applied to both).
Click to expand...

Sequestration applies to non party witnesses, though. K and F aren't parties, but they should be able to hear what the other has to say, IMO. If I'm F's lawyer, I want to hear what K says, so the panel members can't misquote or misconstrue his testimony when they examine her. Same for K.
 
burd said:
Sequestration applies to non party witnesses, though. K and F aren't parties, but they should be able to hear what the other has to say, IMO. If I'm F's lawyer, I want to hear what K says, so the panel members can't misquote or misconstrue his testimony when they examine her. Same for K.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is why it is important both have the same right to rebut. It would be ridiculously one sided if he is allowed to attack her testimony and not the other way around. If she can't, he can't.

If certain people want to treat this as a trial then all rules apply. Both sides state their case, both sides rebut for as long as it takes.. That's it. No fast tracking, no nothing. Everything is game and everything can be be fact checked. And since certain people have a burr up their but about it anyone who wishes to put forth proof needs to disclose. And hey how about rebuttal witnesses too!

Let's stall this out forever!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top