It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitutionality and the days of due process.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
In the early days of our great country lynching was commonplace so much so that it became an epidemic for many years. While most associate lynching with ropes and death, but there are public shaming in the town squares. This week the biggest crime done was the public shaming of a woman and a man for political gain. Where is the justice in this when a mans life and that of his family be destroyed in the court of public opinion based on the words of one woman who did not come forth but was ousted by our representatives and then put before the world to pass judgment all based on words and a performance by herself and the aligned political opportunist.

When will you the American people say something? We stood by when they demonized an entire race of people because of being white, We stood by when they demonized an entire sex, we stood by when they demonized an entire religion. What will you do when they come for you? The court of public opinion, as well as the judicial courts, are wrought with false accusations against so many innocent people where due process is a joke. Where DA's in the name of political gain force the accused to plead guilty for a lesser crime threatening to throw the book at them if they don't. The average American has seen this process first hand in traffic stops and with the IRS where one is not afforded the presumption of innocence.

Order needs to be restored to the judicial wing the legislative wing, and the executive wings of our government they have mocked the constitution and flaunted our rights in the name of political gain.

In November when you vote, be sure to vote for we the people.




posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Saiker

Excuse me.

You seem to be ignoring something pretty important. First of all, there is a difference between assuming innocence unless guilt is proven, and being in denial about the possibility of guilt at all. Second, you have to consider the difference between Joe Public, and those who seek high office. Those who seek high office, seek power, and those who seek power MUST be as damned close to perfect as they can be, morally, ethically, and unassailable from any standpoint involving their conduct, at any time of their life, whether that be college or otherwise. Because these people are not seeking to be Joe Public, they are seeking control over the fate of large numbers of other human beings, and you cannot give positions like that to people who have a bad bone in their body, or even a single bone, leave alone any kind of a skeleton in their closet.

You think it is bad that Kavanaugh is having this investigation done on him? [SNIP] its a damned sight better than him being confirmed and then it turning out later that actually, yes, he has been a serial pervert and got away with it Scott free for years, AND STILL BE SAT ON THE SUPREME COURT!

Honestly, what kind of dullard wants to take that kind of risk? It beggars belief!
edit on 29/9/18 by argentus because: removed insult



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
OP...re traffic stop. You are presumed innocent, which is why you sign to say you’ll appear in court (if you so choose). It is up to you if you plead no contest and pay the fine.

Much easier (and more cost effective) to obey the traffic laws.


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Actually, there should be no presumption of guilt on an accusation with no place, time, evidence or witnesses, 36 years later that has never been reported properly.

Secondly, some of the biggest scumbags on earth just happen to be Democratic Senators.

Just look up the most corrupt list.


edit on 29-9-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Calling me a moron will get you what kind of response Mrs. Feinstein?

I didn't say anything about investigating this man, but a false or unconfirmed accusation should be kept from the public square of shaming until due process a right all of us have. As well as the accusors anonymity. The people who leaked the accusors letter hurt so many people whom would come forth but now are afraid of being thrown in the world's spotlight.

Your Opinion is noted Mrs Feinstein



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us

Obviously, you have never been through a small town with an overzealous officer on a bad day?



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Saiker

It cannot BE kept from the public, without keeping the mans fitness for duty and the fact there is a question over it, from the public, and that would be DEEPLY questionable, assuming you have any respect for the idea that the people are the power, not anyone else.


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

It's possible he did it. It's possible you're a paedophile. I deal in evidence, not possibilities.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Saiker

due process....
as in accusation, INVESTIGATION, and then hearing???



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

It should have been kept from the public until it was investigated and findings presented.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Due process as in charge then investigation. No charges are filed because the accuser refuses.

She also refuses to give anyone access to evidence.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Saiker

Excuse me.

You seem to be ignoring something pretty important. First of all, there is a difference between assuming innocence unless guilt is proven, and being in denial about the possibility of guilt at all. Second, you have to consider the difference between Joe Public, and those who seek high office. Those who seek high office, seek power, and those who seek power MUST be as damned close to perfect as they can be, morally, ethically, and unassailable from any standpoint involving their conduct, at any time of their life, whether that be college or otherwise. Because these people are not seeking to be Joe Public, they are seeking control over the fate of large numbers of other human beings, and you cannot give positions like that to people who have a bad bone in their body, or even a single bone, leave alone any kind of a skeleton in their closet.

You think it is bad that Kavanaugh is having this investigation done on him? Fine, you can't help being a moron, but its a damned sight better than him being confirmed and then it turning out later that actually, yes, he has been a serial pervert and got away with it Scott free for years, AND STILL BE SAT ON THE SUPREME COURT!

Honestly, what kind of dullard wants to take that kind of risk? It beggars belief!

Did you even read the OP before continuing on your virtue signaling tirade...... c'mon guys/gals i think we can all agree "innocent until proven guilty" is pretty important, I doubt you would find anyone on this site that would condone or advocate rape/sexual assault but I would hope we can all agree the whole kav/ford story was handled atrociously and for nothing other than a political show.
edit on 29/9/2018 by 5en5ei because: Grammar nazi


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Saiker

It cannot BE kept from the public, without keeping the mans fitness for duty and the fact there is a question over it, from the public, and that would be DEEPLY questionable, assuming you have any respect for the idea that the people are the power, not anyone else.



Weren't you the victim of "baseless accusations"? Maybe you should reread your thread on that?

Yep I cant believe you are still ok with this ? As long as its against Trump I guess.

www.abovetopsecret.com...







edit on 29-9-2018 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2018 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2018 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

I was the victim of baseless accusations.

Unlike Kavanaugh though, I was accused without:

a) Having prior conduct that would indicate that I would ever do anything of the sort

b) Without attempting to gain public office

c) Having treated the claimant with nothing but the utmost respect.

There is a difference, most crucially, in section (b) of the above response. It is a big difference, and those seeking power should expect to have to answer whatever accusations come their way, especially since if they are worthy of the position, NO ONE, regardless of political affiliation, will believe the accusations assuming no proof or corroboration can be bought by the claimant. Also, in my particular case, the judge did not read the claimants accusations thoroughly, any examination of which by a reasonably intelligent individual, would have been thrown out of court completely out of hand.

Also, if my legal team had not been totally useless, I could have bought hundreds of character witnesses, including people from the LGBT community, who would have told the individual and the judge, that the accusations were IMPOSSIBLE.

Kavanaugh is not in the same boat. He was not just going about his business when this stuff came up, he was seeking confirmation to one of the most powerful seats in his nation. The bar should be higher, the aspirant should expect to be tested, and he should know that his life will not BE private from the moment he steps to the plate, and either accept that or walk.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

No one is perfect and you can't be "perfect" if you can just smear with accusations going back 40 years. The investigation will amount to nothing unless the witnesses want to commit a felony and change their story. So you agree with accusations that can't be proven just because of an emotional testimony? The process is now broken because of that exact frame of thought. I don't want to live in a world where im guilty in the eyes of the media and my own senators with no evidence



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-9-2018 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Kavanaugh never even met his claimant and has zero history of abusing women.

Stop lying.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: 5en5ei

But you cannot assert that it was done for political reasons, any more than someone can suggest at this early stage, other than his accusers and those who have supported the accusers through their sorrows that is, that Kavanaugh is guilty.

The timing of this should not be surprise to anyone who knows anything about sexual assault, as I have had to repeatedly point out, but noooo, apparently people who have something riding on this man getting into office, have abandoned all knowledge they may have once had about this importance facet of living on this planet with other people, because if they had kept what faculties and information they had, they would know that not speaking out is COMMON, that long delays between events and people involved being willing to report them is NORMAL, because the damage these things cause people is DEEP and takes a certain stimulus being applied in order to bring the truth to light.

It actually would make SENSE for these accusations to be accurate, because its perfectly possible that if Kavanaugh had never come into the spotlight, his victims would never have come forward. It may well be that the thought of the man sitting on the highest court in the land appalled his victims so badly that they HAD to speak out, despite it being better for them in their view to remain silent. Some of them probably only heard his name again for the first time in the last few months for crying out loud!

But never mind all that. Lets happily risk putting a creep on the supreme court, because all of a sudden fairness matters to Republican minded peons? Really? It didn't matter a God damn to anyone up until recently, because otherwise you all wouldn't have elected a walking tumour to be the President of your country. It didn't matter when Bush was President either. Sure, you are more interested in following arbitrary rules than you are in whether or not a man being touted as the next supreme court judge, might be morally unfit to hold the position, and again I say, MORONS THE LOT OF YOU!

The risks of doing nothing, and investigating nothing, outweigh the risks of looking into matters by a HUGE, overwhelming amount.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Kav doesn't have a "history" of assault, kav was nominated for the scotus seat, I do believe he hasn't shown anything but respect to a claimant that has changed her story has no evidence and the people she said could corroborate her story all denied it.... take off the blinders buddy



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
and it's not a criminal proceeding, it's a job interview for the highest court of the land, the last resort to decide weather a person's right of due process has been carried out!!
if you are an employer of a company and you are considering this applicant and one of your employees come up to you and says that she's had this kind of experience with him...
what do you do??
more than likely, you kind of just look at those other applications a little more closely and try to avoid the future headaches that would result from hiring this guy. but you might go and ask around about the guy, see if you can't gather some more facts about him.
After hearing the testimony of both Ford and the judge. well, I believe Ford at least believes she is telling the truth.
and well, as far as the judge? I can't help it, I am just glad I ain't married to him because he scared the crap out of me! As someone who's had some experience with domestic abuse, I have to say... he brought back some memories. He also gave me the impression that he would not be an impartial judge!
remember, she had been getting death threats, her family was also affected. her family was also threatened. they had to move out of their house because of it. her character was also being attacked. and yet, she managed to hold her composure throughout the testimony while relating a painful event that she had probably tried to forget for decades.
he had the same thing going on, and yet, I assume he didn't have to foot the bill for the security for him and his family. didn't have to move out of his home I am assuming. had testified before the congress many times before. and yet, I'm sorry, he came across as a stark raving lunatic to me!




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join