Despicable's and Desperado's. Revisiting TITlE IX and Restoring Constitutional Rights.

The "despicable's and desperado's" keep trying and Kavanaugh keeps denying. 

Were I living in California, Feinstein would not get my vote. Any Senator who caves into the realm of becoming a despicable/desperado does not deserve to be in The Senate. No back bone.

Who do you believe? (See 1 and 1a below.)

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh 'categorically' denies claim about alleged behavior in high school.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recently reviewed Mona Charen's; "Sex Matters" and highlighted the fact that TITLE IX deprived accused  students of basic constitutional rights.  This is a law that downgraded student's rights to interrogate accusers etc.  It was passed in the Obama years probably as a political pay off to women and as a way to protect them from  their own tawdry behaviour after being liberated by feminism. A third reason is my belief that men are under a growing attack and I never considered Obama as one to defend males because he never struck strike me as being overly macho. I suspect his wife wears the pants. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) FBI WON'T Investigate Kavanaugh Following 11th-Hour Accusation
By AAN Staff

Despite a last-minute attempt by desperate Democrats, Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to receive Senate confirmation before October 1 when the court's next term begins.

David Martosko, for the Daily Mail, reports:
 

The FBI is declining to investigate Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's connection to a Democratic senator's mysterious claim that troubling 'information' had come to her – information reportedly concerning sexual misconduct when he was in high school. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Thursday in a statement that she had referred her information to federal investigators, just a week before the U.S. Senate is scheduled to begin a series of votes on his nomination.

Feinstein is a liberal California Democrat who has called on her colleagues to slow down the march toward confirming President Donald Trump's pick to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

The Washington Post reported Thursday evening that the FBI handed the senator's materials over to the White House instead of opening a probe, and considered it an update to his background check file.

The New York Times admitted that Feinstein received the cryptic letter about the unspecific allegations against Kavanaugh "this summer" – implying that she likely held onto it in an attempt to sabotage Republicans at the last possible moment.

This latest embarrassing spectacle for the Blue Team comes after Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) compared his grandstanding to that of Spartacus and Sen. Kalama Harris (D-Calif.) deceptively edited a video of the judge's testimony to boost her street cred with liberal activists.

1a) A Late Hit on Kavanaugh

A bad confirmation gets worse for Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

By The Editorial Board

The Senate Judiciary Committee is aiming to vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination next week, so get ready for the late hits and last-ditch smears. The latest came Thursday when ranking committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein announced that she has “information” . . .

Of course she does. Some Democrat was bound to have something. Mr. Kavanaugh had come through his confirmation hearing last week without a dent, and Democrats had made themselves look bad by editing his quotes and spreading innuendo unrelated to his judicial views. Meanwhile, the political left is demanding that Democrats do something, anything, to stop the highly qualified jurist from joining the High Court.

Enter DiFi. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Ms. Feinstein said in a statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

Ms. Feinstein offered no details, and Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said Thursday that she didn’t share the information with him. News reports say the information refers to a letter from a woman concerning possible sexual misconduct when she and Mr. Kavanaugh were both in high school. That would have been sometime in the early 1980s.

News reports also say that Ms. Feinstein has had the letter since the summer, and that it was first sent to the office of Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat from Silicon Valley. But if the “information” is worrying enough to send to the FBI, why did Sen. Feinstein wait so long? She didn’t bring it up during the summer in the run-up to the hearings, didn’t mention it when she met with Judge Kavanaugh, and didn’t think it was important enough to tell her colleagues.

The charitable explanation is that she didn’t think the information was credible enough to warrant investigation, but that now under pressure from her colleagues she felt obliged to surface it. In the current #MeToo frenzy, Democrats may think the story will scare Republican Senators when nothing else has.

Look for Mr. Kavanaugh’s opponents to say that, while they don’t know if the information is true, Mr. Grassley must delay a vote until the FBI can investigate an episode that may or may not have happened between two teenagers nearly 40 years ago. Yet the FBI has already investigated Mr. Kavanaugh many times over his 25 years in government, including for jobs in which he handled important secrets. The FBI said Thursday it has not opened a criminal probe in the case but has put the letter into Mr. Kavanaugh’s background file.

So here’s what we have: A story floated at the last minute about an accusation whose details are unknown from a woman whose identity is secret. The episode says more about the desperation of Democrats than it does about Mr. Kavanaugh, and the real disgrace would be if Republicans did anything other than move promptly to a confirmation vote.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)Due Process for Sexual Assault Cases

The Editorial Board

The Sixth Circuit says the accused have a right to cross-examination.

Universities now play cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in campus sexual-assault cases, often without allowing due process rights to the accused. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last week issued an important rebuke to these Title IX proceedings that ought to become a national standard.

Since 2011 more than 300 accused students have sued over Title IX decisions. Doe v. Baumwas brought by a former University of Michigan student accused of sexual assault. John Doe and Jane Roe, as the parties are identified, agreed they’d attended a party, had sex and that she vomited in a trash can. A few days later she told administrators she had been incapable of giving consent. John Doe disagreed, saying she didn’t seem drunk and had consented.

The case illustrates how an accused student’s fate can dangle on a thread when universities employ a “preponderance of evidence” standard that requires a mere 50.01% likelihood of guilt. The University of Michigan conducted a three-month probe, interviewing 23 witnesses whose accounts varied. The investigator ruled in John Doe’s favor.

His accuser appealed to a three-member Title IX panel that included a student, then-assistant law school dean David Baum, and a retired assistant professor from the dental school. They found John Doe responsible for sexual assault “after two closed sessions (without considering new evidence or interviewing any students),” wrote Judge Amul Thapar.

John Doe needed 13.5 credits to graduate, but the school told him he had to withdraw or be expelled. He left and sued, claiming administrators deprived him of the constitutional property right to his education without due process. Since the case relied on Title IX adjudicators’ judgment about whose witnesses were most credible, John Doe argued he should have been given the chance to cross-examine his accuser and other witnesses.

In Matthews v. Eldridge (1976), the Supreme Court established a balancing test over a property right claim based on how difficult it would be to provide due process and how much the defendant stood to lose. John Doe argued that the university would have incurred minimal cost if it allowed him to question witnesses. Administrators allow cross-examination in other misconduct cases, and they’ve failed to explain why they treat Title IX cases differently. The stakes are enormous for John Doe. Being labeled a sex offender could permanently damage his reputation and jeopardize his education and future prospects.

The Sixth Circuit’s panel ruled for John Doe and said both parties or their legal representatives are entitled to cross-examine witnesses. “Not only does cross-examination allow the accused to identify inconsistencies in the other side’s story, but it also gives the fact-finder an opportunity to assess a witness’s demeanor and determine who can be trusted,” wrote Judge Thapar, a Trump nominee.

The decision affects Title IX practices at more than 40 state colleges and universities in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, but the opinion may influence other courts considering similar cases. The ruling also adds legal credence to Education Secretary Besty DeVos’s effort to restore due process in Title IX proceedings. Michigan hasn’t said if it will appeal, but the Supreme Court is overdue for a case on how universities adjudicate sexual assault.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++