Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 08, 2019

Last week, the legal unraveling of the Obama-era campus sexual-assault guidelines entered a new phase. A student accused of sexual assault and subject to an unlawful, unconstitutional adjudication process filed a motion seeking class-action certification in his pre-existing lawsuit against Michigan State University. Rather than seeking to void the results only of his own flawed adjudication, he's now seeking to void every adjudication where accused students were punished "without first being afforded a live hearing and opportunity for cross examination."

This new motion comes after a wave of cases across the country that have invalidated and reversed the results of campus kangaroo courts -- and these rulings are coming from judges across the political/judicial spectrum. In California, progressive state-court judges issued rulings that effectively halted proceedings in 75 campus sexual-misconduct cases...

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

In fact, it's hard to think of a modern legal policy more thoroughly repudiated than the Obama administration's 2011 "Dear colleague" letter , which required every single public and private college that received federal funds (except for the few religious colleges that had opted out of Title IX) to adjudicate sexual-misconduct complaints under streamlined procedures that mandated lower burdens of proof, implemented a form of double jeopardy, and discouraged basic elements of due process, such as cross-examination. [snip]

But as sexual-assault adjudications fall apart, it's now clear that countless women have been victimized by the lawless Obama-era processes. The remedy for a lawless process is typically voiding the result of the adjudication, regardless of the veracity of the underlying claim. Even when a new proceeding is mandated, accusers are put through the immense challenge of an entirely new hearing. To put it bluntly, as courts properly sweep aside flawed adjudications, they are allowing guilty men to escape consequences for their actions.

That's how law-enforcement scandals work. And make no mistake, the Title IX disaster is a form of law-enforcement scandal.


My words:

In addition to victimizing the survivors of assault, it also created a perverse incentive for young women to make false sexual assault allegations out of spite that they would never face real consequences for at school AND they'd often create incredible disruption and strain on the lives of innocent young men, often getting expelled from school thus harming their employment options, put their lives on hold, cause tremendous emotional pain not being able to defend themselves under standard due process, etc. The legal community was outraged over the "Dear colleague" letter that caused this disaster predicting exactly what transpired. Public universities had their hands tied and some gleefully went along with these new rules. Some that end up paying damages may end up suing the federal government for recompense because they had to follow these new procedures under the threat of losing federal funding.

What a disaster.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 09:34 PM | Reply

ROFLMMFAO.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-07-08 10:26 PM | Reply

The Fascist rag The National Review JEFFRY??? LOL.

How long will it be before you start using your Orange Fuhrer's favorite book Mein Kamph as a source? A week? A month?

For someone that wants to be perceived as some sort of moderate, you do a lousy job at it.

Hint: Your sources are a dead giveaway in regards to your political viewpoint. Work on that then get back to the class.

#3 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-07-08 10:29 PM | Reply

Is there a sexual assault survivor who has said how Obama's policy harmed them, or is that just wishful thinking?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-08 10:30 PM | Reply

Is there a sexual assault survivor who has said how Obama's policy harmed them, or is that just wishful thinking?

#4 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Did you read the article?

If you did I'll gladly answer your question.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 10:43 PM | Reply

The Fascist rag The National Review JEFFRY??? LOL.

#3 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

The writer, David French, has been extremely critical of Trump, and was exposed to a degree of vitriol and nastiness from the alt-right that was, and is, downright harrowing.

Nevermind the fact that plenty of left-leaning legal scholars were as aghast at the implications of this "Dear colleague" policy as RW legal scholars.

You suck at STS. But then, you seem to really suck at life in general.

As for Laura with #2, I'm not surprised that she's laughing at how this policy harms women who've survived campus sexual assault.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 10:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

"If you did I'll gladly answer your question"

I read this, which isn't what I asked for, but rather falls under the wishful thinking category:

"But as sexual-assault adjudications fall apart, it's now clear that countless women have been victimized by the lawless Obama-era processes."

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-08 10:56 PM | Reply

"But as sexual-assault adjudications fall apart, it's now clear that countless women have been victimized by the lawless Obama-era processes."
#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If I'm understanding this correctly, the reason they fall apart is maybe they should have been investigated by local police and tried in an actual court of law, instead of a university hearing.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-08 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But as sexual-assault adjudications fall apart, it's now clear that countless women have been victimized by the lawless Obama-era processes."
#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If I'm understanding this correctly, the reason they fall apart is maybe they should have been investigated by local police and tried in an actual court of law, instead of a university hearing.

#8 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Yes. Absolutely yes. The other side of the coin is that if Universities were/are going to adjudicate these allegations on their own they should rigidly adhere to the legal standards of due process, presumption of innocence, etc.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 11:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read this, which isn't what I asked for, but rather falls under the wishful thinking category:

Do you not understand the potential ramifications of a class-action lawsuit as the result of this Obama policy?

Read the fricking article!

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 11:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

FFS, Snoofy.

Just read what I put in bold in #1.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 11:06 PM | Reply

Oh yeah, I'd sue too. If you're going to accuse me of anything, I want a lawyer and a jury.

You're not going to ruin my life with a campus hearing.

#12 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-08 11:07 PM | Reply

And for actual victims, who wouldn't want their attacker imprisoned??

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-08 11:09 PM | Reply

"Do you not understand the potential ramifications of a class-action lawsuit as the result of this Obama policy?"

Paint me a picture.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-08 11:13 PM | Reply

I also draw an important distinction between "potential ramifications" and actual harm.

You do too, except when it doesn't suit your agenda, like in this thread.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-08 11:15 PM | Reply

Paint me a picture.

#14 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Read the article.

I also draw an important distinction between "potential ramifications" and actual harm.

You do too, except when it doesn't suit your agenda, like in this thread.

#15 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Again, read the article. It's not just the survivors who have been harmed by this policy (that has thankfully been rescinded).

I'll spell it out for you but only if you are actually interested in an honest discussion.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 11:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It's not just the survivors who have been harmed by this policy (that has thankfully been rescinded). "

Well hopefully it's harming the perpetrators!

Was there some other group you had in mind when you made that comment?
Who else is being wrongly harmed, by Trump undoing Obama's policy?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-08 11:25 PM | Reply

Well hopefully it's harming the perpetrators! ~ Snoofy

More likely the innocent.

Was there some other group you had in mind when you made that comment?

I will say it again ... the innocent.

Who else is being wrongly harmed, by Trump undoing Obama's policy?

You mean innocent citizens receiving due process which you afford illegal immigrants?

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-07-08 11:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

#17 - "Who else is being wrongly harmed, by Trump undoing Obama's policy?"

That Snoofy is a slippery one!

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-08 11:38 PM | Reply

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Sheeple articulated it succinctly.

Maybe you aren't aware of how many supposed-assaulters have successfully challenged these Obama-mandated kangaroo courts at public universities?

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 11:49 PM | Reply

Who else is being wrongly harmed, by Trump undoing Obama's policy?

You mean innocent citizens receiving due process which you afford illegal immigrants?

#18 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS


Ouch! That was BRUTAL! NW.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-08 11:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Well hopefully it's harming the perpetrators! ~ Snoofy

More likely the innocent."

How are they being harmed?

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-08 11:55 PM | Reply

More likely the innocent."

How are they being harmed?

#22 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not sure what you are actually questioning here.

Do you not recognize the harm to a young man falsely accused of sexual assault who has his due process rights stripped away and is expelled from a college as a result, plus alll of the ancillary effects of an "investigation" conducted under these terms?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 12:01 AM | Reply

"You mean innocent citizens receiving due process which you afford illegal immigrants?"

I'm not the one who affords illegal immigrants due process.

That would be the Constitution, and the men and women sworn to uphold and defend it.

Trump, however, is ignoring that duty.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-09 12:18 AM | Reply

"Do you not recognize the harm to a young man falsely accused of sexual assault who has his due process rights stripped away and is expelled from a college"

I do, but I don't see how that's "further harm."

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-09 12:20 AM | Reply

"Do you not recognize the harm to a young man falsely accused of sexual assault who has his due process rights stripped away and is expelled from a college"

I do, but I don't see how that's "further harm."

#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The harm of this policy is multi-fold.

The future harm is, based upon how these cases as a result of this policy have been adjudicated across a wide spectrum. The writer of the embedded article makes a critical but unproven assumption based upon how successful lawsuits filed by accused assaulters have been eviscerated by judges across the ideological spectrum - (my words) - By circumventing basic legal principles (due process, presumption of innocence, etc) guys who were and are true predators will have their crimes/predations vacated because the well-established process for this was circumvented.

C'mon, man. Are you not familiar with the legal concept of somebody who is guilty as sin getting off on a process foul? Ask Bill Ayers about this concept.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 12:37 AM | Reply

"By circumventing basic legal principles (due process, presumption of innocence, etc) guys who were and are true predators will have their crimes/predations vacated because the well-established process for this was circumvented."

Can you think of a better option?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-09 12:42 AM | Reply

"By circumventing basic legal principles (due process, presumption of innocence, etc) guys who were and are true predators will have their crimes/predations vacated because the well-established process for this was circumvented."

Can you think of a better option?

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If I'm understanding your question correctly, this is the only option.

This policy shredded basic legal standards and one of the many regrettable results is that true predators will inevitably receive not only recompense, but their victims willl be denied justice all because of this terrible policy.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 12:53 AM | Reply

#28 That's always been the case.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." en.wikipedia.org

I asked people like you what your Blackstone's ratio was a while back.
You didn't have an answer.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-09 12:56 AM | Reply

It is better to retry all cases that can be retried than to simply clear everyone of accusation.

#30 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-07-09 12:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort