Constitutionality and the days of due process.

a reply to: TrueBrit

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.

I think most people would say that sure, it's possible that something happened but the problem is the manner in which it's been handled by those desperate to derail a conservative being sent to SCOTUS. They had ample opportunity to have the accusation investigated but chose not to for entirely political reasons. I think that's what most people are irritated about.

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.

And yet so many of them aren't. Sort of the point the OP was making.

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.

And yet so many of them do. Perhaps those we elect should focus on investigating things in a timely manner rather than when it's most politically expedient for them to do so. That sort of behavior seems...immoral and unethical, wouldn't you agree?

You think it is bad that Kavanaugh is having this investigation done on him?

Personally, I think it should have been over and done weeks ago.

Fine, you can't help being a moron

Name calling certainly helps your argument, that's for sure.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Blah Blah Blah.

I would have never supported Kavanaugh as a supreme court justice based on his policies and stances on Government surveillance and the Patriot act .

But this ridiculous smear campaign has me supporting him FULL TILT.

We see right through you.

a reply to: notsure1

Oh really?

You know what? I wish someone had given me the option of being investigated, when that lying cretin came after me. I wish someone had given me the choice of getting investigated, having my life turned upside down, having my friends and family visited, having everyone I know and interact with, or have done throughout my entire sentient life asked the question "Has this man ever discriminated against anyone in his life, that you know of?". You know what that investigation would have turned up? Nothing. No evidence, no suggestions even, not a hint, or a whiff. It would have turned up the fact that I am the one my people call when theres a threat from actual phobics, because they know I will fly out of the shadows and destroy anyone who seeks to oppress free people. It would have shown me to be the opposite of the character I was cast as by the media. So I would have welcomed that, and I still do.

Kavanaugh however? Seems to have a problem with the idea of getting his name cleared. I would have bitten someones arm off for the opportunity he is getting. He might be cleared completely, meaning his appointment, his confirmation will be clean as a whistle. No one gave me the same chance. He is getting treated a damned sight better than I have been as a result of the accusations bought against me.

a reply to: TrueBrit

He has been part of the second highest court in the country for a decade or more, we all understand your predicament of not being able to see past partisanship and not being able to assume someone innocent until "proven" guilty, unless it's you of course. Calling me a moron and then continuing to explain how virtuous your reasoning is because "guilty until proven innocent except if it's me".... isn't gonna help your cause or make you look smart, it just proves how illogical you are

a reply to: TrueBrit

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.

That’s complete nonsense. Not a single king, president, General, moral leader, has lived up to the standards you’ve mentioned. But you’ll use that piece of tripe to justify show trials and investigating false claims.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: notsure1

Oh really?

You know what? I wish someone had given me the option of being investigated, when that lying cretin came after me. I wish someone had given me the choice of getting investigated, having my life turned upside down, having my friends and family visited, having everyone I know and interact with, or have done throughout my entire sentient life asked the question "Has this man ever discriminated against anyone in his life, that you know of?". You know what that investigation would have turned up? Nothing. No evidence, no suggestions even, not a hint, or a whiff. It would have turned up the fact that I am the one my people call when theres a threat from actual phobics, because they know I will fly out of the shadows and destroy anyone who seeks to oppress free people. It would have shown me to be the opposite of the character I was cast as by the media. So I would have welcomed that, and I still do.

Kavanaugh however? Seems to have a problem with the idea of getting his name cleared. I would have bitten someones arm off for the opportunity he is getting. He might be cleared completely, meaning his appointment, his confirmation will be clean as a whistle. No one gave me the same chance. He is getting treated a damned sight better than I have been as a result of the accusations bought against me.

so you and your family get death threats daily?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Saiker

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.

I agree. I guess that's why I didn't support Barack Obama.

a reply to: 5en5ei

You are the one whose arguments are illogical.

No one has said he is guilty yet. I am saying he should accept this investigation and anything that speeds the clearing of his name.

I am absolutely saying however that he should meet a higher standard than any regular citizen, because he is applying for an irregular and incredibly powerful job, placing him on a bench that he will remain on til he dies. If he has to go through the wringer to get there, and can get through the wringer, that is appropriate, entirely so.

I am also not saying that its one rule for me and another for him. Its one rule for regular folk, as it should be, and another for those seeking power over them, which is entirely right, because letting me about my business without undue harassment is meaningless. I am one, powerless man. Letting those seeking power about their business without investigation is like letting people run around the country in a truck with a nuclear warhead on board, that they have the codes for, in that it is FANTASTICALLY DANGEROUS!

The situations are not alike and cannot be compared without showing yourself up to be talking from between the wrong set of cheeks, never mind being utterly off topic.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Actually, it's not a damn sight better to punish anyone based on accusations just because they are in public life. Only a moron would think so.

If Kavanaugh was found guilty of a crime whilst on the bench then he'd be impeached and removed. There is a process already. I'd point out - for the morons - that Kavanaugh was ALREADY in a lifetime appointment on the bench in what many consider to be the 2nd highest court in the land. So the argument that he can be assumed guilty until it's proven he is not just because its a Supreme Court seat and lifetime appointment up for grabs is complete horse manure, shovelled by idiots who have not a clue about what they are talking about.

originally posted by: 5en5ei
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

you are wasting your time. as long as he is destroyed, any means are ok with some.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You seem to be ignoring something pretty important.

Yeah the GD 5th amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Congress writes bills that Potus signs in to laws.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Unlike Kavanaugh though, I was accused without:

Kavanugh never got his GD day in court of law with jury selection(which none of those snip hat congressman would have been chosen for because of effing bias).

There was no proof entered in to evidence that would have acceptable in a real GD court of law.

Hearsay doesn't count.

Polygraphs don't count.

And any lawyer worth their salt would have censured Durbin,Feinstein,Leahy for bias since they voted no for Kavanughs confirmation in 2006( where this snip was never brought up.

Nor brought up during the last 15 years Kavanugh has set on the bench and undergone 6 soon to be seven FBI background check investigations.

originally posted by: JDmOKI


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

As an observer from over the pond the news casts is all I have to go on,

and as an observer I have to agree with you on *emotional testimony*

After 37/40 years ......

That amount of drama on both sides, leads me to

think something happened on both sides ..... conclusion being to the

*victor* goes the *oscar* for outstanding performance.


Hands up everyone who has nothing they'd rather forget that happened

to them when they were late teens early twenty's.

originally posted by: dawnstar
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!

then that sounds like a personal problem you have. Ford's story changed multiple times and Kavanaugh came off very real and authentic and exactly the kind of man a woman should want.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: JDmOKI


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

As an observer from over the pond the news casts is all I have to go on,

and as an observer I have to agree with you on *emotional testimony*

After 37/40 years ......

That amount of drama on both sides, leads me to

think something happened on both sides ..... conclusion being to the

*victor* goes the *oscar* for outstanding performance.


Hands up everyone who has nothing they'd rather forget that happened

to them when they were late teens early twenty's.

the most likely scenario is something happened to her and it is not as traumatic as she claimed and it was not Kavanaugh who did it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Personally, I think it should have been over and done weeks ago. 

Shamrock -- Please help me understand what an FBI investigation can give us that a Senate investigation cannot give us? I'm asking sincerely (yes, my ignorance is showing!). I don't necessarily oppose an FBI investigation... But I don't understand the advantage of it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Shamrock6

Personally, I think it should have been over and done weeks ago. 

Shamrock -- Please help me understand what an FBI investigation can give us that a Senate investigation cannot give us? I'm asking sincerely (yes, my ignorance is showing!). I don't necessarily oppose an FBI investigation... But I don't understand the advantage of it.

As of now Ford has said she will not turn over evidence in her therapy sessions and has refused to file charges.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As of now Ford has said she will not turn over evidence in her therapy sessions and has refused to file charges.

Okay... So how will the FBI handle that differently than the Senate?

And I gotta say I'm not real keen on forcing anyone to produce medical records...

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: TrueBrit

Actually, it's not a damn sight better to punish anyone based on accusations just because they are in public life. Only a moron would think so.

So the argument that he can be assumed guilty until it's proven he is not just because its a Supreme Court seat and lifetime appointment up for grabs is complete horse manure, shovelled by idiots who have not a clue about what they are talking about.

A Marxist would do that where someone is presumed guilty on the unsubstantiated testimony of one person. We called that the Salem Witch Trials. Plain and simple, we don't presume guilt in a free republic.

a reply to: Boadicea

She shouldn't be forced, but don't ask for an investigation and then refuse to provide evidence you say backs up your claim.