Should aspiring doctors be held to the Kavanaugh Standard?

[drusso]

If Kavanaugh had been pre-med instead of pre-law, would he be allowed to be a neurosurgeon? Surgeon General? Is it okay for "sexually-aggressive," alpha-males to become orthopedic surgeons?

Kavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique

https://www.facebook.com/marjie.lew...ZYVKRIEe8IxJVaFk07vfjzH3xd-Ox_kaU_em4&fref=nf

Written by a Female Physician who was wild in college.

"This is not Justice. This is Wrong... I was immersed in the party scene in college. I drank to excess. I had black out nights. I WAS GROPED AT FRAT PARTIES. If advances were unwanted I pushed the person away and set personal boundaries. I chose to be a part of the party scene. Because of this I had fun and I have regrets. I HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED AND NOT RAPED. I could replay a scenario like Christine Ford described as very similar to things that happened when excessive drinking occurred in my own experiences.
At the age of 25 I settled down and now my idea of excitement is Netflix and yoga pants. If any of my current patients saw my behavior back then, I could understand why they wouldn’t want me to care for them.

I feel like being a physician is every bit as important as being a Supreme Court Justice. The decisions we make over the span of our careers could change the lives of thousands of people and their descendants for years to come. The same can be said for the Supreme Court or any other political office held. The thing is, poor choices in the past does not, and should not disqualify them. I chugged bankers club whiskey in a cornfield and peed behind a dumpster 25 years ago. But Friday I used tiny instruments to remove infected bony partitions from the ethmoid sinus a few millimeters away from the brain. Should I have a right to operate on humans despite my past? You are damn right I do. You know why? Because I spent 20 years educating myself and sacrificing countless hours to get there. I gave up so much to be good at what I do, to be confident enough in myself to put myself out there to care for people who put their lives in my hands. My hands are capable in spite of my weaknesses of the past.

Character is built partially on learning from mistakes. Brett Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service and the past 20 years of his life is the definition of integrity. He deserves this appointment.

I AM AGAINST THE WEAPONIZATION OF VICTIMHOOD. Believing unequivocally the woman is right every single time no matter what is giving women power to take out anyone in their path. That is not equality. This radical position is not the answer to gender discrimination and victims rights.

No one can even place Brett Kavanaugh and the Christine Ford IN THE SAME ROOM at a party that zero people recollect except for the woman making the accusations.
If every single woman must be believed every single time, we all know there will be circumstances by which someone will use this power for selfish reasons. It sets women back so far. This is not breaking the glass ceiling. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. THIS IS WRONG.

(Please Note: The author of this testimonial is not me. The doctor who wrote this is a friend of my medical friend, so I can vouch for its authenticity. -- Marjie Lewis)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctodd]

studies show that 40% of female sexual assault accusations are false

 

[Ducttape]

So don’t believe women. Believe men instesd.

Maybe we shouldn’t believe the woman who wrote this...

Oh wait she didn’t write it; a friend of a friend wrote it...

 

[SSdoc33]

studies show that 40% of female sexual assault accusations are false

when you make a clearly ridiculous statement like this, you have to link to the actual studies.

SMH

False accusation of rape - Wikipedia

"According to the data provided by the FBI, between 4,400 and 5,100 allegations of rape every year were deemed false or baseless after investigation, out of a total of 87,000– 90,000, corresponding to an average of 5.55%. "

sexual assault is a broad topic, and very difficult to prove. not all sexual assault is "rape".

your claim that 40% of female sexual assault accusation is in itself, false.

 

[Aether2000]

Not all studies agree with the FBI reports and have shown much higher false reporting rates:
Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 370 20%
Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4%
Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24%
Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164
62 out of 164 41% ("false" claims)
38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41%
Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45%
Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47%
Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90%

It is likely the rates are somewhere between 5 and 20%. The real issues are that the accused identity is made public while the accuser is kept shielded, and that the damage done to the falsely accused is only rarely rectified through imprisonment or monetary sanctions on the false accuser.

 

[Doctodd]

Not all studies agree with the FBI reports and have shown much higher false reporting rates:
Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 370 20%
Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4%
Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24%
Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164
62 out of 164 41% ("false" claims)
38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41%
Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45%
Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47%
Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90%

It is likely the rates are somewhere between 5 and 20%. The real issues are that the accused identity is made public while the accuser is kept shielded, and that the damage done to the falsely accused is only rarely rectified through imprisonment or monetary sanctions on the false accuser.

Now you know you’re in trouble when Algos is not on your side. MM will be along shortly.

What do you think her penalty should be for the libel and slander of his good name and his family’s emotional distress? What is fair to all the real sexual assault victims so that their voices are heard now instead of discarded because of this fraud? What do you think the value of a Supreme Court seat is worth and how much should the civil case be worth?

Today’s new liberal talking points are about how many millions of dollars Trump stole/evaded in taxes when he was three years old.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Not all studies agree with the FBI reports and have shown much higher false reporting rates:
Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 370 20%
Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4%
Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24%
Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164
62 out of 164 41% ("false" claims)
38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41%
Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45%
Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47%
Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90%

It is likely the rates are somewhere between 5 and 20%. The real issues are that the accused identity is made public while the accuser is kept shielded, and that the damage done to the falsely accused is only rarely rectified through imprisonment or monetary sanctions on the false accuser.

Its much more complicated than that: What we know about false rape allegations

Completely agree with your last sentence though.

 

[Victorinox]

Case in point:

Rape charges are dropped against four California dentists | Daily Mail Online


While I think any guy who picks up 'hookers' in Vegas is suspect, these guys have had their name dragged through the mud, because one of them had sex with someone and then there was some sort of falling out afterwards.

Anytime anyone googles any of them, this will turn up on the search, whereas the skank who knowingly made the false allegation is still anonymous.

Happens more frequently than people care do admit.

 

[Gauss]

If Kavanaugh had been pre-med instead of pre-law, would he be allowed to be a neurosurgeon? Surgeon General? Is it okay for "sexually-aggressive," alpha-males to become orthopedic surgeons?

civil/public service has vastly different regulations than private sector. There are civil service jobs that even require medical clearance, like the military. Although I heard UCSF is requiring pscyh assessments prior to hiring new faculty.
As far as I know, background checks are not performed for entry into med school, residency or fellowships - yet VA and hospitals do checks for access & privileges. Forgot that med boards also do checks prior to granting state licensure

 

[hyperalgesia]

If Kavanaugh had been pre-med instead of pre-law, would he be allowed to be a neurosurgeon? Surgeon General? Is it okay for "sexually-aggressive," alpha-males to become orthopedic surgeons?

Kavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique

https://www.facebook.com/marjie.lew...ZYVKRIEe8IxJVaFk07vfjzH3xd-Ox_kaU_em4&fref=nf

Written by a Female Physician who was wild in college.

"This is not Justice. This is Wrong... I was immersed in the party scene in college. I drank to excess. I had black out nights. I WAS GROPED AT FRAT PARTIES. If advances were unwanted I pushed the person away and set personal boundaries. I chose to be a part of the party scene. Because of this I had fun and I have regrets. I HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED AND NOT RAPED. I could replay a scenario like Christine Ford described as very similar to things that happened when excessive drinking occurred in my own experiences.
At the age of 25 I settled down and now my idea of excitement is Netflix and yoga pants. If any of my current patients saw my behavior back then, I could understand why they wouldn’t want me to care for them.

I feel like being a physician is every bit as important as being a Supreme Court Justice. The decisions we make over the span of our careers could change the lives of thousands of people and their descendants for years to come. The same can be said for the Supreme Court or any other political office held. The thing is, poor choices in the past does not, and should not disqualify them. I chugged bankers club whiskey in a cornfield and peed behind a dumpster 25 years ago. But Friday I used tiny instruments to remove infected bony partitions from the ethmoid sinus a few millimeters away from the brain. Should I have a right to operate on humans despite my past? You are damn right I do. You know why? Because I spent 20 years educating myself and sacrificing countless hours to get there. I gave up so much to be good at what I do, to be confident enough in myself to put myself out there to care for people who put their lives in my hands. My hands are capable in spite of my weaknesses of the past.

Character is built partially on learning from mistakes. Brett Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service and the past 20 years of his life is the definition of integrity. He deserves this appointment.

I AM AGAINST THE WEAPONIZATION OF VICTIMHOOD. Believing unequivocally the woman is right every single time no matter what is giving women power to take out anyone in their path. That is not equality. This radical position is not the answer to gender discrimination and victims rights.

No one can even place Brett Kavanaugh and the Christine Ford IN THE SAME ROOM at a party that zero people recollect except for the woman making the accusations.
If every single woman must be believed every single time, we all know there will be circumstances by which someone will use this power for selfish reasons. It sets women back so far. This is not breaking the glass ceiling. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. THIS IS WRONG.

(Please Note: The author of this testimonial is not me. The doctor who wrote this is a friend of my medical friend, so I can vouch for its authenticity. -- Marjie Lewis)

It's hard to imagine "progressivism" surviving without victimhood as a weapon.

 

[Ducttape]

Seems self evident - progressivism is the support for social reform. The reason to reform is to help the disenfranchised and the socially disadvantaged try to attain a level playing field... not to keep those in power remaining in power.

 

[Ducttape]

There are only 9 Supreme Court justices. Justice is supposed to be blind.

The standards and reason for standards for SCOTUS are very different than a regular Justice and as such the analogy is moot.

Maybe if we eventually develop a Meducal Ethics board to decide what patients get chronic narcotics, we can revisit this...

 

[thiswonthurtabit]

I think this article misses the point as I think many, many people miss the point. I have much more concern regarding Kavanaugh's response to the accusations and general lack of ability to maintain an even temperament than the allegations as they currently stand.

If his response had been: "you know, I don't remember Ms. Ford and I don't recall these events having happened however in my youth I did make mistakes some of which included excessive consumption of alcohol. If, I my actions on such an occasion caused Ms. Ford discomfort or trauma I truly apologize. While I understand that my apologies cannot undo the trauma that Ms. Ford may have experienced it is my hope that others learn from this discussion about inappropriate actions that can stem from excessive alcohol usage. I am not the same man as I was in high school, I have learned how to enjoy beer in moderation to avoid potentially putting myself or others in potentially harmful situations." I would have been far less concerned.

Instead he reacted with rage and indignation that someone could dare make these accusations and potentially get in the way of HIS supreme court seat. Which makes me greatly concerned with regards to his ability to weigh the law in an impartial manner to render judgement based on fact rather than feeling.

 

[Doctodd]

I think this article misses the point as I think many, many people miss the point. I have much more concern regarding Kavanaugh's response to the accusations and general lack of ability to maintain an even temperament than the allegations as they currently stand.

If his response had been: "you know, I don't remember Ms. Ford and I don't recall these events having happened however in my youth I did make mistakes some of which included excessive consumption of alcohol. If, I my actions on such an occasion caused Ms. Ford discomfort or trauma I truly apologize. While I understand that my apologies cannot undo the trauma that Ms. Ford may have experienced it is my hope that others learn from this discussion about inappropriate actions that can stem from excessive alcohol usage. I am not the same man as I was in high school, I have learned how to enjoy beer in moderation to avoid potentially putting myself or others in potentially harmful situations." I would have been far less concerned.

Instead he reacted with rage and indignation that someone could dare make these accusations and potentially get in the way of HIS supreme court seat. Which makes me greatly concerned with regards to his ability to weigh the law in an impartial manner to render judgement based on fact rather than feeling.

he already said those things, especially in his interview. How many times should he say it? And just to be clear, his record as a judge over the past 30 years is what should matter. It has been said by many people that he acted appropriately to having his name and his family go through the slander and circus that the Democrat Senators caused. And at the end of the day, it will most likely come out that she fabricated the entire thing. As it is, the 4 people she mentioned cant corroborate anything she said. If anything, they refute it. And a new character witness WITHOUT a gofundme account has stated with detail that she isnt credible. So on it's face, he should be pissed.

 

[drusso]

Maybe if we eventually develop a Meducal Ethics board to decide what patients get chronic narcotics, we can revisit this...

No one wants unelected bureaucrats making sensitive & highly personalized heath care decisions using "cook book" formulas or rubrics. Nothing could be more un-American and betray our culture's commitment to individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness (including choosing your own physician and making your own autonomous health care decisions).

"Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people." Saul Alinsky.

 

[hyperalgesia]

There are only 9 Supreme Court justices. Justice is supposed to be blind.

The standards and reason for standards for SCOTUS are very different than a regular Justice and as such the analogy is moot.

These are 9 flawed humans, just like the rest of us, like our politicians, like our president.

What matters is that they reliably and impartially do their job.

 

[Ducttape]

No one wants unelected bureaucrats making sensitive & highly personalized heath care decisions using "cook book" formulas or rubrics. Nothing could be more un-American and betray our culture's commitment to individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness (including choosing your own physician and making your own autonomous health care decisions).

"Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people." Saul Alinsky.

Yes then you agree with my point. The 2 siruations are vastly different

These are 9 flawed humans, just like the rest of us, like our politicians, like our president.

What matters is that they reliably and impartially do their job.

so do you think the snarling accusatory kavanaugh we saw on the witness stand can be impartial? The one that made such inappropriate comments to a sitting Senator in a public arena?

 

[hyperalgesia]

so do you think the snarling accusatory kavanaugh we saw on the witness stand can be impartial? The one that made such inappropriate comments to a sitting Senator in a public arena?

I didn't watch the whole thing but weren't they going through his high school yearbook from 35 years ago and trying to make him look like an adolescent?

Is it appropriate for a sitting US Senator to ask a witness to define "boffing" when children are watching - the witness' children are watching?

I think Kavanaugh called it like he saw it. And did so accurately.

And I do actually think he can serve impartially.

 

[Agast]

This thread.

I guess it’s open to interpretation if “first do no harm” includes don’t choke a woman and rip off her clothes unless she’s down with it.

 

[drusso]

I didn't watch the whole thing but weren't they going through his high school yearbook from 35 years ago and trying to make him look like an adolescent?

Is it appropriate for a sitting US Senator to ask a witness to define "boffing" when children are watching - the witness' children are watching?

I think Kavanaugh called it like he saw it. And did so accurately.

And I do actually think he can serve impartially.

Should the same information be available to medical school admission committees? Do you want someone who signs their yearbook, "FFFF-Bart" doing your wife's pelvic exam or your Dad's prostate's exam?

 

[jsaul]

studies show that 40% of female sexual assault accusations are false

Man, where in the world did you get that from? what studies are these?

 

[Ligament]

Yes then you agree with my point. The 2 siruations are vastly different
so do you think the snarling accusatory kavanaugh we saw on the witness stand can be impartial? The one that made such inappropriate comments to a sitting Senator in a public arena?

Your kidding, right? The guy is being accused of sexual assault while a teenager in front of the world and family, with zero evidence to back it up...he is being treated as guilty until proven innocent. What are we in, the middle ages? Does he need to survive burning at the stake and blood letting to "prove" his innocence?

In this country, for hundreds of years, we enjoy the legal process, the core tenant of which is innocence until proven guilty.

Would you be angry if you were accused of an assault 35 years ago while you were 17 years old and your accuser had zero evidence, negative corroboration from named witnesses, no knowledge of the location, time, date?

 

[Ligament]

he already said those things, especially in his interview. How many times should he say it? And just to be clear, his record as a judge over the past 30 years is what should matter. It has been said by many people that he acted appropriately to having his name and his family go through the slander and circus that the Democrat Senators caused. And at the end of the day, it will most likely come out that she fabricated the entire thing. As it is, the 4 people she mentioned cant corroborate anything she said. If anything, they refute it. And a new character witness WITHOUT a gofundme account has stated with detail that she isnt credible. So on it's face, he should be pissed.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Should the same information be available to medical school admission committees? Do you want someone who signs their yearbook, "FFFF-Bart" doing your wife's pelvic exam or your Dad's prostate's exam?

These yearbooks have always been available in the school library. Our common decency has prevented us from digging into everyone's childhood and throwing it in our faces. In any profession

 

[deleted480308]

I think this article misses the point as I think many, many people miss the point. I have much more concern regarding Kavanaugh's response to the accusations and general lack of ability to maintain an even temperament than the allegations as they currently stand.

If his response had been: "you know, I don't remember Ms. Ford and I don't recall these events having happened however in my youth I did make mistakes some of which included excessive consumption of alcohol. If, I my actions on such an occasion caused Ms. Ford discomfort or trauma I truly apologize. While I understand that my apologies cannot undo the trauma that Ms. Ford may have experienced it is my hope that others learn from this discussion about inappropriate actions that can stem from excessive alcohol usage. I am not the same man as I was in high school, I have learned how to enjoy beer in moderation to avoid potentially putting myself or others in potentially harmful situations." I would have been far less concerned.

Instead he reacted with rage and indignation that someone could dare make these accusations and potentially get in the way of HIS supreme court seat. Which makes me greatly concerned with regards to his ability to weigh the law in an impartial manner to render judgement based on fact rather than feeling.

It is perfectly appropriate to be angry if someone falsely accuses you of trying to rape them

 

[Agast]

It is perfectly appropriate to be angry if someone falsely accuses you of trying to rape them

A more normal response would be to sue for slander and libel. That’s what I would do if my name were dragged through the mud on a national scale. But it probably helps that I would never actually do any of the things people say he’s done...

 

[Ligament]

It is perfectly appropriate to be angry if someone falsely accuses you of trying to rape them

Really? Because the liberals think you should be HAPPY you were accused of attempted sexual assault without any evidence or witnesses whatsoever...or facts...

 

[Ligament]

A more normal response would be to sue for slander and libel. That’s what I would do if my name were dragged through the mud on a national scale. But it probably helps that I would never actually do any of the things people say he’s done...

But I said you HAVE done these things, you attempted to rape me 12 years ago. I can prove it by my emotions. I can also name witnesses that deny any knowledge of the incident but that does not matter you are guilty because of your genitals!

Go ahead and defend that.

It probably helps that he would never actually do any of the things people say he's done. That's what he said too. Why is it different when you say it?

 

[Gauss]

much has already been said on this in the painrounds forum, cross posting
<iframe src="Facebook" width="500" height="263" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>

1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.

2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principal that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.

4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.

5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.

6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.

 

[Agast]

But I said you HAVE done these things, you attempted to rape me 12 years ago. I can prove it by my emotions. I can also name witnesses that deny any knowledge of the incident but that does not matter you are guilty because of your genitals!

Go ahead and defend that.

It probably helps that he would never actually do any of the things people say he's done. That's what he said too. Why is it different when you say it?

So if you did say those things about me to the media I would get a lawyer and your ass would be sued in court. You’re welcome to try if you’re not sure I’m serious. Because the burden of proof is now on you to back up your claims in a legal setting.

That little hearing Kavanaugh had was not a legal setting and I’m not surprised he wants to keep it that way. Discoverable information in court is very different.

 

[drusso]

. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.

Completely agree that those arguments mis-state the standard. Is "fitness" a higher or lower standard than due process, rules of evidence, reasonable doubt, etc?

It seems that in the past that we've had slave owners, drunks, and likely rapists serve on the Supreme Court and no one batted an eye...what's changed?

 

[hyperalgesia]

So if you did say those things about me to the media I would get a lawyer and your ass would be sued in court. You’re welcome to try if you’re not sure I’m serious. Because the burden of proof is now on you to back up your claims in a legal setting.

I don't think so. In this example, Ligament is the defendant and the burden is on you to prove his claims are libel.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Completely agree that those arguments mis-state the standard. Is "fitness" a higher or lower standard than due process, rules of evidence, reasonable doubt, etc?

It seems that in the past that we've had slave owners, drunks, and likely rapists serve on the Supreme Court and no one batted an eye...what's changed?

Also I recall RBG called Trump names in the election. Should we impeach her because she is unfit to serve?

 

[Agast]

I don't think so. In this example, Ligament is the defendant and the burden is on you to prove his claims are libel.

Sure, which I could do easily. Agast 12 years ago was even more boring than I am today. Certainly never joined any frats with bad reputations or participated in a Devil’s Triangle.

 

[Agast]

It seems that in the past that we've had slave owners, drunks, and likely rapists serve on the Supreme Court and no one batted an eye...what's changed?

Does an absence of standards in the past mean we shrug it off in the future?

What’s the point of trying to bring back “values” in American society if they only apply to the little guy and not the ones at the top? The original question was what kind of standards should we put on future doctors. I hope we can all agree it’s not a good idea to let rapists become doctors just because some doctors may have raped in the past. Like that freaky Nassar and the gymnasts.

As far as what’s changed - social media and fast dissemination of news have changed the way we share and process information. Before I had no way of knowing my classmates were sexually assaulted. Now they can share it on Facebook. You and I can argue back and forth on an Internet forum and it’s not a secret anyone can find it and make their own opinions. There’s no more hiding in 2018.

 

[Ducttape]

Gauss summed it up succinctly. This is a job interview, not a court of law. Presumption of innocence need not apply. How you respond, on the other hand...

his accusatory stance, belligerent approach to questioning, all suggest he is not an appropriate SCOTUS. He will be biased from the get go. And... While his Fox interview served to politicize SCOTUS like never before, it wasn’t a deal breaker. His demeanor on that show did not disqualify him from the position. Not so with the hearings...

Again, remember no accusations were ever brought up against Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito.


Regarding the last point - Agast hits the point. In the past, white men were entitled and privileged. They made up the vast majority of all positions of power and would appoint others like themselves. That does not make it right, not in the current day and age.

 

[deleted480308]

Gauss summed it up succinctly. This is a job interview, not a court of law. Presumption of innocence need not apply. How you respond, on the other hand...

his accusatory stance, belligerent approach to questioning, all suggest he is not an appropriate SCOTUS. He will be biased from the get go. And... While his Fox interview served to politicize SCOTUS like never before, it wasn’t a deal breaker. His demeanor on that show did not disqualify him from the position. Not so with the hearings...

Again, remember no accusations were ever brought up against Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito.


Regarding the last point - Agast hits the point. In the past, white men were entitled and privileged. They made up the vast majority of all positions of power and would appoint others like themselves. That does not make it right, not in the current day and age.

If one is dealing with the govt, presumption of innocence should absolutely apply

 

[Doctodd]

So if he was telling the truth, and/or she was lying, was his response appropriate? Everything points to her being full of ****. If you couldn’t read her with your own eyes in real time, here’s a post-game analysis. Amazing that the very liberal USA Today would publish this, but I applaud it. The rest of this liberal echo-chamber-outrage at white men is embarrassing in a physician forum. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The press has been running with these stories shaming white men and you guys are taking the baton gladly. Can’t you have your own original thoughts for Christ’s sake? It’s scary how much power they have over your mind.

Christine Blasey Ford's changing Kavanaugh assault story leaves her short on credibility

 

[Agast]

The rest of this liberal echo-chamber-outrage at white men is embarrassing as a physician. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Here’s what I don’t understand - why does Kavanaugh represent white men for you? He doesn’t for me. Kavanaugh can be a douche bag all day long and it doesn’t mean you yourself should be treated differently. But it does concern me when people defending him put him in the same ranks as slave owners and rapists (“look at all these ****ty guys what’s the harm in one more piece of ****”).

650+ law school professors just signed a letter stating his conduct at the hearing makes him unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Sounds like he was found deficient by a jury of his peers.

 

[Orin]

I was confused by the whole thing, but this part made me chuckle.

MITCHELL: What do you consider to be too many beers?
KAVANAUGH: I don’t know. You know, we — whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.

Regardless of the alleged assaults, this is a man that would likely CAGE positive.

He's lying through his teeth about his problems with alcohol, and it's not even a hard lie to poke holes in. Fess up and move on. That makes me think lying doesn't bother him and his need to fake/hide it makes me think he's not really someone who should be a judge, much less on the Supreme Court.

 

[emd123]

Not all studies agree with the FBI reports and have shown much higher false reporting rates:
Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 370 20%
Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4%
Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24%
Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164
62 out of 164 41% ("false" claims)
38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41%
Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45%
Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47%
Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90%

It is likely the rates are somewhere between 5 and 20%. The real issues are that the accused identity is made public while the accuser is kept shielded, and that the damage done to the falsely accused is only rarely rectified through imprisonment or monetary sanctions on the false accuser.

I was wondering where you got these numbers. Shockingly high. But they do check out. 2006 Cambridge Law Journal.

http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/6478/1/Download.pdf


"Table 1
A Selection of Findings on the Prevalence of False Rape Allegations

Source False Reporting Rate Number %

Theilade and Thomsen (1986) 1 out of 56 1.5%- 4 out of 39 10%
New York Rape Squad (1974) N/A 2%
Hursch and Selkin (1974) 10 out of 545 2%
Kelly et al. (2005) 67 out of 2,643 3% 22%
Geis (1978) N/A 3–31%
Smith (1989) 17 out of 447 3.8 %
U.S. Department of Justice (1997) N/A 8%
Clark and Lewis (1977) 12 out of 116 10.3%
Harris and Grace (1999) 53 out of 483 10.9% 61 123 out of 483 25%
Lea et al. (2003) 42 out of 379 11%
HMCPSI/HMIC (2002) 164 out of 1,379 11.8%
McCahill et al. (1979) 218 out of 1,198 18.2%
Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 37067 20%
Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4%
Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24%
Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164 41%71 62 out of 164 38%
Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41%
Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45%
Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47%
Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90%"

 

[lobelsteve]

I was confused by the whole thing, but this part made me chuckle.

MITCHELL: What do you consider to be too many beers?
KAVANAUGH: I don’t know. You know, we — whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.

Regardless of the alleged assaults, this is a man that would likely CAGE positive.

He's lying through his teeth about his problems with alcohol, and it's not even a hard lie to poke holes in. Fess up and move on. That makes me think lying doesn't bother him and his need to fake/hide it makes me think he's not really someone who should be a judge, much less on the Supreme Court.

Never been drunk? Never binged drank? Could turn this into a game of I never. But drinking in hs, college, med school, residency, fellowship was part of the process.

 

[emd123]

During my 10 years in the ED, rape victims were brought to the ED. We had the job of collecting the evidence and doing the rape kits. The nurses would do most of the evidence collection, aside from the pelvic exam which was an MD role. There was a lot of evidence for the nurses to collect: Scraping under the nails, hair samples, rectal swab, more DNA and more DNA. As the physician, our job was to take the history, and we were trained to be as specific as possible. We'd ask for names, exact acts that occurred, what body parts, where, when, etc, to help with prosecution later, if that path was chosen. You'd run a pregnancy test, std tests, HIV, etc. The rape kits were then turned over to law enforcement and saved in case charges were pressed.

I must say a tremendous amount of these cases involved women who were intoxicated and didn't remember what happened or by who, or only remembered bits and pieces. Often times it was impossible to determine who took what, gave what, who did what, when, when where or why. Were they slipped a pill against their will? Did they drink excessively by choice? Were they drugged then given alcohol? What acts happened? What didn't? What body parts were touched, which weren't?

Without witnesses to fill in the gaps, often times it was impossible to tell. The end result was that recollections were often so poor that without DNA, an assailant ID (and there often wasn't) and more information there was little hope of a prosecutable case, in many instances. The detectives would show up (always in a suit) and show their obvious frustration. That doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. Sometimes the women couldn't even say for sure. It just means often times these situations are very difficult to determine what happened even under the best of circumstances. Not all of these cases presented like this, but a lot of them did.

It's a sad situation.

 

[Orin]

Never been drunk? Never binged drank? Could turn this into a game of I never. But drinking in hs, college, med school, residency, fellowship was part of the process.

It's not a game of never have I ever done something bad. It's that never have I ever needed to commit perjury for it.

 

[SSdoc33]

Boof is not farting. Devils triangle is not a drinking game. Ralph club is not because of a weak stomach. Renate alumnus is not a term of affection. These are all lies under oath. They are stupid, ridiculous, seemingly unimportant lies. They should mean nothing, but they are still lies. No reasonable person would believe bret kavanaugh in regards to the answers to these questions. Why should we trust him with a lifetime appointment?

 

[Doctodd]

Here’s what I don’t understand - why does Kavanaugh represent white men for you? He doesn’t for me. Kavanaugh can be a douche bag all day long and it doesn’t mean you yourself should be treated differently. But it does concern me when people defending him put him in the same ranks as slave owners and rapists (“look at all these ****ty guys what’s the harm in one more piece of ****”).

650+ law school professors just signed a letter stating his conduct at the hearing makes him unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Sounds like he was found deficient by a jury of his peers.

Attacking white men is on every liberal channel now as an excuse/justification angle to attack all Republican white senators, rich white men, etc....yet again. The talking heads are saying it over and over and over. It's the "dog whistle" when you have no other position and there is an election coming up. Democrats are the real racists, and always have been. With the Senate Hearing last week, screaming racist and sexist and anything else is en vogue now. Im sure you will come up with something else next week until Democrat hypocrisy rears it's ugly head yet again....like Weinstein, Moonvies, Ellison. Also very convenient is that Mrs Ford's mounting lack of credibility is no longer your talking point....i wonder why?

Ford wasnt intoxicated, so she has no explanation for things that every woman who is sexually assaulted can remember. It does damage to legitimate victims for her to cry wolf and still be supported despite her being debunked. Democrats are experts at muddying the waters...makes sense since they are mostly lawyers. Lawyers who are the kings of dog and pony shows in court are criticizing him? That is pretty rich. You havent been in a court room much, have you?

The muddying of the waters is all moot anyway until the FBI report comes out. Of course the liberal media is already attacking it before it even comes out saying the White House is controlling it. We shall see.

 

[Agast]

...I don’t even know how to respond to your claim that there are things every sexually assaulted women remember. Are you speaking from personal experience?

 

[drusso]

Never been drunk? Never binged drank? Could turn this into a game of I never. But drinking in hs, college, med school, residency, fellowship was part of the process.

You would let a binge-drinking, rule-breaking, fornicating womanizer stick a needle in your spine??? The IPM specialty should strive for higher standards for personal conduct. We are endowed with a higher calling and more responsibility than a mere jurist/lawyer.

How important is it that your doctor meet or exceed the Kavanaugh standard?

 

[Gauss]

If one is dealing with the govt, presumption of innocence should absolutely apply

Paranoid nonsense. Government is out to get ya! Seriously? This has been GOP brainwashing BS since Reagan. So, let's talk about his civil service vs private sector employment rights. With these accusations nothing will happen with his current employment. His employment is contractual, for cause, and union represented. Contrast this to at will, non-unionized employment in the private sector where an employer can fire you without cause at any time. In the private sector, the second you are considered a liability you are out. Try to win a wrongful termination lawsuit on grounds other than discrimination or retaliation.
Duffman Brett will be fine

 

[Doctodd]

...I don’t even know how to respond to your claim that there are things every sexually assaulted women remember. Are you speaking from personal experience?

From the attorney who specializes in this type of thing....

"To begin with, Mitchell lays out how Ford had "not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened" or her age when it happened, and how "her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent." For example, Mitchell points out that Ford listed Patrick "PJ" Smyth to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to a Post reporter, but "she did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's."

Ford has "no memory of key details of the night in question -- details that could help corroborate her account," Mitchell writes. Ford does not remember who invited her to the gathering, how she heard about it, how she got there, or where that house was located with any specificity. "Most importantly," Mitchell writes, "she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house. Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions."

Since Ford is no longer your talking point, you can get back to his behavior, his HS yearbook, his alleged alcohol problem, Trump's taxes, and any other new talking points you were given.