This take, published in The New York Times Thursday, wouldn’t be as hot if it weren’t written by a law professor. In short, Kate Shaw argues that credible allegations against Brett Kavanaugh should be enough to disqualify him from sitting on the Supreme Court.
Credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying, even if the evidence wouldn’t support a criminal conviction or civil liability. https://t.co/2NMONymAwm
— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) September 20, 2018
Seriously?
It’s natural to place this sort of accusation within a criminal-justice framework: the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence; the right to confront and respond to an accuser. If Judge Kavanaugh stood criminally accused of attempted rape, all of that would apply with full force. But those concepts are a poor fit for Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where there’s no presumption of confirmation, and there’s certainly no burden that facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
So an accusation alone is enough to disqualify someone from sitting on the Supreme Court?
I have a better idea. It's called due process. So buzz off. https://t.co/dsWcaoxChT
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) September 20, 2018
I’m sorry did I miss something? Was a credible allegation made? Because I certainly haven’t heard one ?
— ?twolittlespoons? (@twolittlespoons) September 21, 2018
The allegations are far from credible. She draws a blank on many important details and her story has changed.
— John Hog Hannah (@JohnHogHannah1) September 21, 2018
They’re not credible. https://t.co/R4cCpaoN7j
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 21, 2018
They aren’t credible. Her own named witnesses refute her story, for crying out loud! This is another high-tech lynching by Democrats. https://t.co/Oe8OkcSQPw
— See Jack Run (@CrackaJackin) September 21, 2018
Recommended
How do you determine if allegations are credible when there’s literally zero evidence to prove it? https://t.co/obcUWEIrqG
— Goodnight Robicheaux (@jordan_lorenz14) September 20, 2018
Credible? Please explain how so. https://t.co/pK666OCdib
— Barbara Winston (@BarbaraS370) September 20, 2018
Just because you want them to be credible doesn’t mean they actually are. https://t.co/eCDIVbTaZU
— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) September 20, 2018
When you actually have some credible allegations, I'm listening. https://t.co/uAOnlqpiGm
— Jack (@SkipTerrio) September 21, 2018
Okay, but only if I get to determine what’s “credible.” Deal? https://t.co/sv0W1dPyoU
— Jubal E. Harshaw (@alimhaider) September 21, 2018
Who decides which allegation is credible? https://t.co/yXDA744gHE
— Arthur Kimes (@ComradeArthur) September 21, 2018
Wherein the New Woke Times redefines the word credible away from meaning something that would stand up in court. https://t.co/MHVEv36SA8
— Jack Murphy (@jackmurphylive) September 20, 2018
This is ducking ridiculous. There’s nothing credible about this lady’s story so far. Feinstein won’t even release the unredacted original. Your side is playing a dangerous game
— richard (@notKrueger) September 20, 2018
"It doesn't matter if there's evidence to support" is not a good argument that should be used https://t.co/DurGzw7RhB
— Ben McDonald (@Bmac0507) September 21, 2018
I'd say that they have a very low threshold for "credible", but this is the NYT… so that'd be redundant. https://t.co/ITG1oJgvBb
— Sean The Producer (@SeanTheProducr) September 21, 2018
I thought the NYT was supposed to be a serious outlet? https://t.co/01WLmx9JEu
— Jeston Texeira (@JestonTexeira) September 21, 2018
If it can really be just enough to accuse AND the press supports it, then all that has to happen to enforce it is who is in charge of federal government. Chilling and Un-American. https://t.co/e49jGgPSor
— Just Brad (@bradcundiff) September 20, 2018
Yeah, that’s not justice, either. https://t.co/xuoU2zRAUq
— Eddie Wilder (@ethomasw) September 21, 2018
That's not how any of this works. https://t.co/3wJFG2a3IQ
— Calle Ocho Safety School (@EERCANE) September 21, 2018
That’s a dangerous precedent. You all won’t like the new rules https://t.co/dxPNMZfzWI
— commonsense (@commonsense258) September 20, 2018
So guilty until proven innocent is new standard? Did I miss something here? https://t.co/G425OuUvDa
— Paul Seale (@paulvseale) September 21, 2018
Due Process is irrelevant to the NYT. https://t.co/3EhorrLH5J
— Ryan B. Leslie (@RyanBLeslie) September 21, 2018
Guilty by innuendo.
— Robert Lorbeer (@rlorbeer) September 20, 2018
I vaguely recall the time the author of this opinion piece once assaulted me but I can't recall the time or place. Yes, this was 35 years ago, but I am sure it happened. She should be fired and imprisoned. All those that work with her need to stop with normal work until…
— notallowedtosay (@havetobecompli6) September 20, 2018
No. Absolutely not. This is garbage. https://t.co/hhKgKPmv4g
— Son of Liberty (@filiuslibertate) September 21, 2018
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) September 21, 2018
NYT embarrasses itself again. https://t.co/kH8qJ68mwN
— Kristy H (@Kristy_C_H) September 21, 2018
Next level stupid. Feinstein will pay for all of this. https://t.co/P51aqhlPyb
— Brandon Lurie (@brandonlurie1) September 21, 2018
Um …
The Huffington Post (!) released a poll asking if Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh were "credible."
The responses:Men: 28%
Women: 25%https://t.co/mKATqNmJGs pic.twitter.com/OIeOnGSf8S— Benny (@bennyjohnson) September 20, 2018
Related:
'REPULSIVE'! TIME sickens with 'possibly the worst thing written about' Brett Kavanaugh https://t.co/3JbiRzB7IG
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 20, 2018