At least two people (Dfpolis and I) identified problems with each point, and this made no difference.
You never identified any problems, you just ignored them.
I say Ford made long air trips just for pleasure, but when invited to the Senate hearings she refused to travel claiming she was afraid of air trips. My conclusion: she is a liar, you conclusion: she is brave.
Ford named three witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party. My conclusion: she is a liar, your conclusion: she has poor memory.
Ford failed to answer the question about payment for polygraph test. Is that realistic that a person is not aware of someone having paid for the services the person obtained? My conclusion: in no way, Ford is a liar. Your conclusion?
Ford has never mentioned Kavanaug's name in any official documents including sessions with her therapist for more than 30 years . My conclusion: she is a liar.
Finally, For what have all these lies been made?
My answer: Ford benefited becoming a national celebrity. My conjecture: She is a Russian agent who is well paid for and whose mission is to undermine American political system.
Your answer?
You either don't have any logical thinking or it fails you becaused you are biased.

@Proto

Haven't read the whole thread, so not sure what problems people haven't responded.

As for the points you list:

Fear of flying

This question came up in the hearing.

Mitchell: I ask that because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?

Ford: Well, I was willing—I was hoping that they would come to me. But then realized that was an unrealistic request.

Mitchell: It would have been a quicker trip for me.

[Both laugh.]

Ford: Yes. So, that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.

It's pretty clear she's afraid of flying, tries to avoid it, but if it's not avoidable she can fly. This is how people with fears behave; their first reaction is to avoid what they fear and then if they can't they try to overcome it (to achieve other goals). It's also clear she didn't use flying to avoid going to the hearing but thought the hearing could come to her, which she quickly realized wasn't possible resulting in her flying to and speaking at the hearing.

This thing about flying is a small irrelevant detail that the conservative media tried to use to undermine her credibility. But she obviously flew to the hearing, despite her fear of flying, which is consistent with flying for other reasons too and inconsistent with the idea of having a contrived excuse to avoid speaking.

Payment for polygraph

It's a super high profile committee hearing. She's asked by high profile people to do a polygraph, directly or indirectly by the democrat senators: she does the polygraph. It's completely reasonable to not ask who's paying for it and not even realize it could be paid by a party other than the government.

It's also not clear what the motivation would be to know who paid for the polygraph but then lie and deny knowledge of who paid. It's clearly information the R members of the committee can easily find out. Ergo: totally irrational to jump to the conclusion that this is yet more lies.

Ford failing to document Kavanaug's name

The pattern of behaviour established so far (according to Ford's testimony and what a few others connected to Ford have so far said) is that Ford tried to rationalize and trivialize the assault (that she claims occurred, and claims committed by Kavanaug) as she managed to escape the rape. So she didn't tell anyone. However, the experience had long term psychological affects that she decided to deal with later. Clearly it did not bother her too much that Kavanaug was a federal judge but the prospect of him being a SCOTUS judge was a threshold for her to do something; it's also a situation where the testimony has a real affect as trying to bring a decades old charge to trial in order to unseat a a sitting judge is very unlikely to succeed nor simply the accusations likely to "ruin his career", but such testimony is much more relevant in a SCOTUS hearing where the standard of evidence is much lower (it is reasonable for senators to consider an accusation of attempted rape by a credible witness, even without corroborating evidence, for a SCOTUS position). Of note, ford sent her letter before Kavanaug was nominated in the hopes that it would sway Trump's nomination choice to avoid a scandal.

Considering Ford's claims, her pattern of behaviour is consistent with them. It is still in the realm of possibility that she is lying, or imagined things, or miss-identified Kavanaug.

The whole point of an FBI investigation is to see if there is corroborating evidence somewhere.

Russian agency

You follow your conclusion that not only is Ford lying on the points you bring up but these lies are reasonable basis to further conclude she's a Russian agent, and then go on to accuse other forum members that they are "failing to think logically" or are "biased".

This is really an incredible level of irrationality. Jumping to conclusions without evidence, just stating you conclude she is lying, is not how rationality works: it's exactly how bias works.

Though it is possible Ford is lying or has missremembered or misidentified Kavanaug, there is so far no evidence to support that as the plausible explanation. A pattern of Ford making up traumatic events or seeking celebrity status (to further her value to Russian?) has not emerged. So simply making a conclusion anyway is not how reasoning from evidence works.

What has emerged is a pattern of Kavanaug drinking to excess, which he already testified to, as even a "weak stomach" does not start vomiting after half a beer without serious medical problem which would be well documented by doctors throughout his life with a strong recommendation to avoid drinking altogether (in other words it's simply not plausible to conclude Kavanaug could drink to vomiting regularly yet somehow not get drunk enough to loose memory regularly; it's conceivable but not plausible).

This in itself is a fatal blow to Kavanaug's candidacy. Past drinking habits are relevant to SCOTUS position. First it's an indication of character that might be outweighed by other indications of character, but relevant nonetheless. Second, even if excessive drinking was long ago, it creates the possibility that hard evidence does exists of crimes or scandalous behaviour (a photo sitting in a box somewhere) and this has the potential to create either a large scandal in the future that undermines the credibility of the SCOTUS or, worse, falls into the wrong hands and is used to blackmail Kavanaug. These are completely reasonable considerations for Senators to consider when considering a SCOTUS candidacy. Even small potential for blackmail based on hearsay (i.e. reputation) about a candidate's past is regularly used to deny promotions to a particularly sensitive positions (keeping nuke codes, access to foreign agent identities, Supreme Court Justice, that sort of thing) even if the candidate is otherwise fully competent and such considerations were not sufficient to block previous career advancements.

edit:spelling and clarity

edit2: and there is actual testimony, not just hearsay, of Kavanaug's drinking habits.

Please point out where I ever attacked Dr. Ford.

God I hope this entitled twat doesn't get confirmed.

You never identified any problems, you just ignored them. — Proto

False. Look back a couple pages. I commented on each of your items. You responded, "The main point she seemed false for me." So it was you who ignored what I said, and your comment is consistent with my assertion that you listed rationalizations, not factors that led you to a conclusion.

I say Ford made long air trips just for pleasure, but when invited to the Senate hearings she refused to travel claiming she was afraid of air trips. My conclusion: she is a liar, you conclusion: she is brave.

I said no such thing. I just pointed out that people with fear of flying often fly, and pointed you to an article that discusses this. She was reluctant to fly; she preferred not to. This doesn't imply she would never fly. Further, it's false to characterize it as a "refusal" to fly.

Ford named three witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party. My conclusion: she is a liar, your conclusion: she has poor memory.

I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that no one remembers every gathering they ever attended. Failure of 3 people to recall a vaguely described gathering, 30 years earlier, that had no personal significance to them is not surprising. Had one or more of them remembered, it would constitute corroborating evidence, but an absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of lying.

Ford failed to answer the question about payment for polygraph test. Is that realistic that a person is not aware of someone having paid for the services the person obtained? My conclusion: in no way, Ford is a liar. Your conclusion?

She didn't "fail to answer," she just didn't know the answer. The answer turned out to be that her lawyer paid for it - it had been their recommendation to have it performed. I expect the lawyers will pass along the cost to her.

Ford has never mentioned Kavanaug's name in any official documents including sessions with her therapist for more than 30 years . My conclusion: she is a liar.

False premise to assume victims of abuse actually discuss it. Speaking out is atypical.

Finally, For what have all these lies been made?
My answer: Ford benefited becoming a national celebrity. My conjecture: She is a Russian agent who is well paid for and

This is not evidence of lying, it is pure speculation that rationalizes the assumption she lied. Your conjecture is fantasy - there being zero reason to think she's a Russian agent.

While it is possible she lied, your stated case for concluding this doesn't hold water.

Merged comment from @boethius

Of course there are "politics at play" in the situation.

Who leaked Ford's accusations to the press is unknown. It could be the democrats in their political calculus, it could be Ford's friends as some are suggesting, it could even be a republican politician or staffer who intentionally (to undermine Trumps goals which would fit the pattern of many past leaks) or unintentionally by some offhand remark to someone who told someone who told a journalist (a la, this whole think could totally explode if this professor from Yale goes public). In any case, the hypothecial that the Democrats springing this last moment as a political play is ethical is also a legitimate political philosophical debate, but doesn't by extension somehow mean the accusations can be reasonably ignored.

Kavanaug and R senators seem made the point several times that democrats playing politics, which they assert as fact not one of several possibilities, should essentially disqualify the accusation, going so far as to claim the whole thing is a joke. Neither Kavanaug or the R senators elaborated on how this argument actually works. So first questions to supporters of Kavanaug is whether the claim democrats did sit on the allegations and leaked last minute is the most plausible and second, assuming democrats did purposefully "delay and spring it on Kavanaug last moment", should such a politic play override the credibility of the accusations (i.e. is playing politics somehow undermine the accusations as such or somehow mean they are not irrelevant to the hearing), and third does this square with instances where Republicans "played politics" to achieve a political goal (such as simply never having a hearing for Obama's SCOTUS nominee).

So are there good arguments for the above?

If not, the fact that Kavanaug made it very clear he feels victim of a "political play" is then undermining his ability to weigh evidence and come to reasonable conclusions based on that evidence. I.e. if there's not sufficient evidence to support the idea a democrat political play happened, presumably it's not a good demonstration of a judge's abilities; likewise, even if it's given the democrats made this political play, it's not straightforward that the accusations should then not be heard or are less relevant the hearing (including the other accusations other than form); it may not be "nice" to Kavanaug but it's not illegal to play politics (politicians do it all the time) and again simply jumping to convenient conclusions is presumably something to be avoided in a Supreme Justice.

Now, conservative media is not claiming there's some rational connection between these things, simply that "it's not fair for Kavanaug, boohoo, everyone's made mistakes". However, do forum participants actually view the above reasoning steps of Kavanaug and R senators as credible?

Likewise, Kavanaug claimed polygraphs are irrelevant as not accepted in federal trials, but himself ruled that they are relevant for government hiring purposes. How is this not blatant hypocrisy? If he's not aware that he's contradicting his own ruling and trying the muddy the waters with reference to a trial context that he clearly understands is insufficient to render other uses of polygraphs irrelevant or illegal (as that's exactly his own ruling) then this seems pretty incompetent, if he is aware then he's engaging in propaganda to avoid the truth coming to light -- does his personally benefiting from his own propaganda somehow irrelevant or desirable qualities in a supreme court nominee?

Then there's the playing with words about drinking and counter accusing the questioning senators if they ever blacked out and very tenuous explanations of "Devil's triangle and Renate Alumni". The evidence seems overwhelming these are boldface lies as well as lies of omission and question avoidance and behaviour Kavanaug is very unlikely to allow as a standard for his own courtroom (not to mention the whole calendar thing). Is it totally reasonable for Kavanaug to not apply his own standard of under-oath-testimony he'd expect in testimony in his own court? Or is there good reasons to believe that's his standard on display?

Now, supporters of Kavanaug that accept he significantly undermined his credibility and he's no longer at the standard that is desirable in a supreme justice candidate ... but R senators should confirm him anyway to lock down the SCOTUS, what reasoning supports this view?

@boethius

Republicans "played politics" to achieve a political goal (such as simply never having a hearing for Obama's SCOTUS nominee)

Indeed.

SCOTUS has become politicized, and not just under Trump. Roosevelt attempted to reshape or "pack" the Court by expanding it, then appointing justices friendly to New Deal programs. The Court led by Earl Warren, 1953–1969, was hated by conservatives (especially the extreme right) at an almost hysterical pitch.



Citizens United (2010) is to liberal Americans what Roe vs. Wade (1973) became to conservatives and the religious right: a political rallying cry.

I don't know if there is a way to structurally protect SCOTUS from political sturm and drang. Packing, enlarging, establishing term limits for justices... replacing them with Martians... Just don't know. Anyway, it isn't the Court so much as it is one group of the The People vs. several major players -- like religious organizations in Roe Wade or rich individuals and corporations in Citizens United.

The People really have to have a broader strategy than depending on the court.

I don't know if there is a way to structurally protect SCOTUS from political sturm and drang. Packing, enlarging, establishing term limits for justices... replacing them with Martians... Just don't know. — Bitter Crank

I've heard that the Canadian SC is not at all politicized like SCOTUS, so it's not impossible.

I agree with almost everything you said, but disagree that Kavanaugh is necessarily being hypocritical about polygraph tests. IMO, this article makes a good case:

"Brett Kavanaugh was asked during yesterday’s hearing if he would take a polygraph test. He replied that he would do whatever the Judiciary Committee asked him to, but noted that polygraphs are inadmissible in federal court because they are “unreliable. That fact is not in dispute...”

His court opinion merely, "affirmed that “polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.”

Btw, it's absolutely vital that this is primarily framed as a job interview, rather than a trial. In any other position if the employer were to discover that a job applicant may have committed sexual assault, they'd be dropped immediately as a potential hire.

Anyway, I think the Kavanugh debacle is starting to digress into territory similar to Trump's, where the lies just compound and compound until it's difficult to keep track, unless one is paying very close attention, and therefore it becomes easier to dismiss the accusations and shrug one's shoulders, as repetition increases banality.

I agree 100%. Worst case, he's an innocent man wrongly accused who is unfairly denied a job. Sad from his perspective, but lots of qualified, deserving people fail to get the job they want. This can be said about a lot of SCOTUS candidates, I expect.

Btw, it's absolutely vital that this is primarily framed as a job interview, rather than a trial. In any other position if the employer were to discover that a job applicant may have committed sexual assault, they'd be dropped immediately as a potential hire. — Maw

Dunno why this seems so hard to grasp.

@Bitter Crank Have a lot more political parties in the senate so you need a coalition to have someone confirmed. Problem solved. Also this : Corruption is legal

I flagged you for stupidity and being an uncaring asshole. I hope you get banned.

@aserwin Can you point me to the relevant federal and/or Maryland law please?

Point to what? Just listen to her testimony??? Is she telling the truth or not? If she is telling the truth, then later victims could have been saved by her pressing charges...

what are you actually asking?

Point to what? — aserwin

The law that says it’s a crime to not report a crime. Here’s an example:

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

However, it was ruled in United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977) that "the mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4." (it requires active concealment), and as far as I know Ford’s accusation isn’t of a felony, so this can’t be the law you’re talking about.

So show me the actual statute that Ford is in violation of.

And according to this, “Maryland does not have mandatory reporting laws for domestic violence or sexual assault” except in cases of child abuse (and it should go without saying that the child victim isn’t required to report it).

@Bitter Crank

I don't know if there is a way to structurally protect SCOTUS from political sturm and drang. Packing, enlarging, establishing term limits for justices... replacing them with Martians... Just don't know. Anyway, it isn't the Court so much as it is one group of the The People vs. several major players -- like religious organizations in Roe Wade or rich individuals and corporations in Citizens United.

The People really have to have a broader strategy than depending on the court.

The idea of an independent court (like an "independent federal reserve") is mainly to protect the rich from a populist government that wants to redistribute wealth (hence Roosevelt needing to pack the court for the new deal). It's a nice thought that an independent court could reign in a corrupt government, but it's actually more likely, in my view, that an independent justice system is corrupted (bribery, blackmail, or then the slow work of filtering out the non-wealthy from going to top law schools, becoming top lawyers and judges in the first place etc.). Justice is fundamentally a political thing, and so voting for key positions, like Surpeme justices, is in my opinion the best option. Which is the current system just indirectly voting for the president and then senators. Of course, first past the post system for electing supreme court justices would be terrible, but there are other systems in my opinion that are better than first past the post direct voting as well as elect a president and senators (in first past the post and not even counting votes equally, so a mix of two bad systems). Of course, even indirect voting can be improved on too (like a 60 vote threshold maybe). If the argument against direct voting for supreme court justices is that people can't recognize the benefits of impartial judges ... well what benefits can they recognize and so why should they vote on anything at all?

Trying to make any part of government independent of politics, is just an unsolvable problem.

However, I completely agree that judicial activism is terrible even when your own side wins. By short-circuiting the political process of social debate, activity of citizens for what they believe and crafting and passing new laws, the result is a schism and polarization of society (and each side focusing on pushing through their judges rather than needing to engage in public debate). For instance, Ireland only passed a law allowing abortion recently, but this reflects the real changes of the attitudes of Irish society; if one supports abortion rights then this delay caused unneeded suffering, but the alternative to democracy is tyranny and society learning new things by definition takes time.

Why this seems an impossible position for pro-choice people in the case of Roe v Wade, is because there is an assumption in the Anglo style court system that a judge must rule on every case, ultimately the Suprme court being the last arbitrator. Therefore, in this system Judges are faced with needing to invent new laws or applying incomplete laws in irrational ways; i.e. they must either serve injustice or create new standards of justice. This is a false dichotomy. The solution is that, as exists in other systems, justices can request clarification of the laws; basically throwing the ball into the legislature who can then make a new standard (with application of the the standard retroactively being an option), the standard goes back to the courts who then apply it based on the evidence.

Edit: To complete my last point, making politicians clarify the law means people can vote them out if they don't like how they vote. Again with alternatives to geographic and first past the post representation being possible also, including the politicians throwing the ball directly to the people in a referendum (again with higher than 50.1 % threshold being an option as well) and improvements on confusing, badly worded, false dichotomy referendums likewise being a possibility.

It's a nice thought that an independent court could reign in a corrupt government, but it's actually more likely, in my view, that an independent justice system is corrupted (bribery, blackmail, or then the slow work of filtering out the non-wealthy from going to top law schools, becoming top lawyers and judges in the first place etc.). — boethius

There's a lot of countries out there with an independent justice system that have no problem keeping corruption out of their system, so this doesn't hold true. In fact, from a Dutch perspective, the political identity of judges is in a sense corrupting the practice of applying the law when their political beliefs influence their method of interpretation. "Political views" is not an acceptable interpretative technique when applying the law.

Justice is fundamentally a political thing, and so voting for key positions, like Surpeme justices, is in my opinion the best option. Which is the current system just indirectly voting for the president and then senators.

Yes and no. On the one hand when writing laws, to the extent they are concerned with justice, the prerogative on prescribing what justice is, is with the Parliament and therefore a political thing. Where it comes to the interpretation of laws, however, justice,equity and fairness, ought to be the goal of any interpretation. In other words, where different interpretative techniques are possible a judge should pursue the one leading to the most just result as informed by tradition and the dictates of public consciousness.

This seems significant. Kavanaugh allegedly contacted friends to solicit support against the allegations of Deborah Ramirez, and he did this prior to the appearance of the New Yorker article. In his testimony last week, Kavanaugh said he first learned of the charge from that article.

There's a lot of countries out there with an independent justice system that have no problem keeping corruption out of their system, so this doesn't hold true. In fact, from a Dutch perspective, the political identity of judges is in a sense corrupting the practice of applying the law when their political beliefs influence their method of interpretation. "Political views" is not an acceptable interpretative technique when applying the law.

You talk about facts but don't mention any facts. Which countries?

You mention the dutch: literally first hit on searching results in "Judges are appointed by the Crown, under the aegis of the Minister for Security and Justice [...] Individuals can be nominated for appointment to the judiciary only on recommendation by a national selection committee, made up of members from the various courts, the public prosecutor’s office and individuals active in society."

In other words, it's a political process that selects judges. It just so happens that the Dutch value objectivity and impartial judges. However, if these selection committees fell prey to partisan forces they could nominate partisan judges to advance their cause through rulings. It is simply not true to say the Dutch judiciary is independent. Just as 60 vote threshold in the US senate perhaps resulted in less partisan judges, but the process fell prey to partisan forces who lowered the bar.

I mention in my post that indirect voting for judges can nevertheless work better than what we are seeing in the US right now.

To be clear, what full independence would mean would be along the lines of A. that judges simply select their successors without any possible intervention (dependence) from elections or elected representatives (basically how cardinals and popes get selected, B. judges are selected at complete random from the population C. a computer algorithm selects judges (by coders in turn selected by the previous A or B methods).

In the context of the exchange, independent meant complete independence from politics (not a unbiased characteristic voters might wish for judges to have); i.e. no voting for judges directly nor indirectly nor any ability to impeach them.

My comment was in the response to Bitter crank's observation of "I don't know if there is a way to structurally protect SCOTUS from political sturm and drang. Packing, enlarging, establishing term limits for justices... replacing them with Martians... Just don't know." I.e. a completely independent judiciary from all "politics" to which my point is that the justice system is inherently political, so may as well make the best democratic selection process feasible (which may very well be the dutch system of selecting selection committees).

In other words, it's a political process that selects judges. — boethius

It isn't a political process. No politicians involved. The executive branch appoints, the selection committee is made up by the judiciary and legal professionals. No legislative representatives involved.

@Benkei

Do some basic research.

Supreme Court of the Netherlands wikipedia page: "Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by royal decree, chosen from a list of three, advised by the House of Representatives on the advice of the Court itself. "

Politicians are involved.

I agree it's a mix, but a mix is not fully independent.

I also agree that a fully independent court (such as selection entirely from existing judges) can work for a period of time.

My argument is that I think it is more likely to lead to corruption, either blackmail / bribe corruption or systemic bias in the judge selection process, than democratic processes (just as kings can work out for a period of time).

This argument boils down to the strength of Ford's claims, period. Not what your ideology is, not what your opinion is, not how you feel about her, not what someone's motives are, etc. First, do the claims Ford has made have enough support to come to the conclusion that Cavanaugh committed a sexual assault, which is based on her memory of something that took place over 35 years ago.

There is no doubt that she is credible, i.e., no doubt that she believes what she's saying. However, believing what you're saying is not enough to ascertain truth, there has to be objective evidence. The only thing we want to know is if there is any corroboration, or any objective evidence that supports her claims. In fact, there is no evidence to confirm her accusations, other than her memories, which may be false memories, maybe partially false memories, or they may be accurate memories. In fact, it's quite possible that her memory of the assault, which I believe happened (although just an impression) could be mostly based on faulty memory. We don't have enough information about her, her background, her psychological state, her character, etc. There is evidence that her memory, for example, is faulty, viz., she can't remember where it happened, or even give a good time frame of the assault. Based on that alone we should wonder just how accurate her memories are.

I hear people say that since this is not a court proceeding that somehow we don't need to be reasonable or require good evidence. What?! The idea is to be fair and just, to not let mere accusations destroy peoples lives, whether you like them or not. If a credible accusation is enough to destroy people, then we're all in trouble.

Testimonial evidence by its very nature is weak, even when you have two or three witnesses it can be weak. People have been wrongly convicted based on the testimonial evidence of two or more witnesses. Why is this enough to say that he is guilty? Why is it even enough to keep him off the Supreme Court? It isn't.

Is there counter-evidence? Yes, his whole life is counter-evidence. There is nothing in his character to suggest that he would do such a thing.

Finally, can we know for sure? No, we can't, but we have to base our conclusions on what is reasonable to believe, what is probably the case, not what is possible. Not on what we want to believe, or what is politically expedient, or even one person's memory of something that occurred so long ago. This is true of those on both sides of the argument.

I agree with everything you said. But as far as I can tell, every reasonable person around me believes he attempted rape at the age of 16. If he's confirmed it will be wounding. It's just a shame that we can't go back in time and have Trump pick somebody else.

sure most have read this already - but just in case

http://pdf.iwv.org/09.30.18%20Mitchell%20Memo.pdf

I hear people say that since this is not a court proceeding that somehow we don't need to be reasonable or require good evidence. What?! The idea is to be fair and just, to not let mere accusations destroy peoples lives, whether you like them or not. If a credible accusation is enough to destroy people, then we're all in trouble. — Sam26

Not being confirmed to the Supreme Court isn't destroying someone's life.

The only thing we want to know is if there is any corroboration, or any objective evidence that supports her claims. In fact, there is no evidence to confirm her accusations, other than her memories, which may be false memories, maybe partially false memories, or they may be accurate memories. In fact, it's quite possible that her memory of the assault, which I believe happened (although just an impression) could be mostly based on faulty memory. We don't have enough information about her, her background, her psychological state, her character, etc. There is evidence that her memory, for example, is faulty, viz., she can't remember where it happened, or even give a good time frame of the assault. Based on that alone we should wonder just how accurate her memories are. — Sam26

I haven't been following the cases at all, but I wonder what evidence there was against Crosby and is against Weinstein?

Not being confirmed to the Supreme Court isn't destroying someone's life. — Michael

If you think that these accusations haven't destroyed his reputation, whether he gets on the supreme court or not, you have to be living on Mars. That accusation will hang over his life for the rest of his life - innocent or not.