When is a right not a right?

The left argues that a SCOTUS nomination is a job interview not a criminal/legal proceeding. Therefore, presumption of innocence does not apply. This is a quick and easy way to shut down a debate that would show just how un-American this witch hunt has become.

If convicted in the court of politics because he couldn't prove he didn't do something he loses everything. His reputation, and thereby his livelihood, is destroyed. He and his family will endure the insults of ignorant people for the rest of their lives. His social life and community activities will be limited at best. Sure sounds to me like he is being tried, convicted and sentenced by the Democrats and spineless Republicans.

Our rights as American citizens aren't contingent upon the venue. It is not those Senators that decide when our rights apply it is the SCOTUS.

Our Constitution is the contract that binds us as a nation. It establishes how we will allow "them" to govern us and more importantly what they cannot do. One of those prohibitions is against sentencing any one of us for a crime they cannot prove. Yet it seems a large part of the American population is willing to discard the right to due process.

If you think what the Democrats are doing to Kavanaugh is OK then you have no idea what being American means.

BTW - just to be technically accurate ….

The Constitution does not mention this right by name. Instead, the general principle was simply taken from English common law. It has since been backed up firmly in numerous cases, by many accounts starting with Coffin vs. the United States in 1895.

That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.

blog.lawinfo.com... f-innocence-in-the-constitution/

a reply to: DrChandra

I dont think that the court of public opinion is covered by the constitution.
Right or wrong?

Just reality.

On the other hand, any person giving testimony against kavanaugh is subject to defamation of character charges if caught in a lie.

a reply to: DrChandra

But to turn your logic around for a second...

Your statements mean that you would prefer potentially appointing a person who has a history of sexual battery, over making sure that a person appointed to that position has never committed any such thing IN FACT. You cannot justify that without abandoning good sense and morality, no matter what documents you reference, or what laws you cite. If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested, and are not prepared to make damned sure they are NOT that kind of scum, then I have news for you:

You are part of the problem, you will never be part of its solution, and nor will the people you support.

a reply to: Bluntone22

It is.

The entire Bill of Rights is dedicated to public opinion, and when it got stupid (democracy) it drew a line and said 'They shall not pass'.

Those Senators clearly violated Kavanughs 6th amendment right as they are the 'state'.

Boldly declaring his guilt.

Judge,jury, and executioner.

a reply to: neo96

There is no judge Judy and executioner.

This is not a trial.
And hes a judge himself so I would think he would point something like that out.

And yes, I meant judge judy....

a reply to: TrueBrit

a person who has a history of sexual battery

Prove it

You cannot justify that without abandoning good sense and morality, no matter what documents you reference, or what laws you cite.

Good sense and morality says YOU should not support this sexual McCarthyism. And those "documents and laws "I'm citing is the Constitution. But, if you are really British I guess you could be excused for not getting the concept, especially lately. If you are American I'd like to remind you the election is November 6th for Republicans, November 7th for Democrats.

If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested, and are not prepared to make damned sure they are NOT that kind of scum

Wow! That is one hell of a debate point there I guess I'll have to cede that point (obvious sarcasm). BTW, I remember when you had sex with goats. I know you are capable and you can't prove you didnt so you must have.


See how that works?


BTW - you are obviously trolling

a reply to: DrChandra

Not on trial
No right to due process

Someone else who don't understand

There will always be a public opinion.

Hey, let's take away people right to think and have an opinion.

a reply to: DrChandra

members of senate committes should have nomination hearings

the mandate of states voters - gives them the right to attend the senate - and vote on issues .

but if they wants to be on committies - but the idiots through the wringer

a reply to: Bluntone22

I dont think that the court of public opinion is covered by the constitution.

First, I didn't say the court of public opinion I said court of politics which is a governmental body basing their actions on un-constitutional principles.The main point of my argument is the Constitution doesn't only apply in a court room. Perhaps you can show me where it says the Bill of Rights only applies when formally charged with a crime.


Again, this is about the concept of due process when unjustly accused.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DrChandra

But to turn your logic around for a second...

Oh, this should be fun...

Your statements mean that you would prefer potentially appointing a person who has a history of sexual battery, over making sure that a person appointed to that position has never committed any such thing IN FACT.

You are wrong, and in stating this, you are part of the problem and will never be a part of the solution if you parrot such nonsense.

There have been both questioning in the senate AND an FBI investigation into the matter, and we have multiple statements from the few witnesses (again, that Dr. Ford cited as being witness) who either do no corroborate or flat-out refute that the alleged incident ever happened.

In making your comment here, you are implying that an accusation is enough to make someone guilty of an act, regardless as to the plethora of witness statements and an investigation that results in the only conclusion being that the incident cannot, at all, be corroborated.

Therefore, you must assume that Kavanaugh is not the sexual assaulter that Dr. Ford claims that he is.

Couple that with at least one of the other accusers changing up her story that he was part of a gang-rape train and was drugging women via the punch bowl, and you start to realize that, if you're a thinking person who appreciates the innocent-until-proven-guilty and the preponderance-of-evidence standard to indict someone, 'there is no there there.'

And then couple that with all of the gleaming comments on his character from the years of him being a judge, and then you REALLY have no there anywhere.

You cannot justify that without abandoning good sense and morality, no matter what documents you reference, or what laws you cite. If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested, and are not prepared to make damned sure they are NOT that kind of scum, then I have news for you:

You are part of the problem, you will never be part of its solution, and nor will the people you support.

This is a very silly statement, which is why I mocked it. You know nothing of Kavanaugh as a person, and you're only suckling at the teat of baseless allegations because you are an ideologically driven person who jumps at every chance to demean and berate those who don't align with your beliefs.

That does not make that other person part of the problem, just because you are incapable of rational though surrounding the issue. Every bit of evidence that does exist, which are basically statements by people who knew him, attests to Dr. Fords allegation being unfounded, yet here you are, telling everyone who doesn't think like you that they are a problem and so are the people that they support.

But you have no substance, just emotion--your far-too-predictable MO these days.

And I'm no a big fan of Kavanaugh, as I don't like his views on the 4th Amendment, but that doesn't mean I toss him out along with baseless allegations just because...well, just because of allegations. That's immature thinking, at best.

a reply to: TinySickTears


Can't you folks read... "the court of politics". The court of public opinion is staffed with partisans convincing idiots to vote against their own best interest.

a reply to: DrChandra

Wow... you didn't read what I wrote, you just read what you wanted to see, something you would be able to argue around, rather than what was there.

Again, if you are more interested in the letter of the law, than making absolutely sure that someone being appointed to an outrageously powerful position is not potentially a fiend, then you are part of the problem. No where did I say that Kavanaugh is or has been proven to be a sexual predator. Your inference is your problem. Learn to read, and you might waste less time arguing points that are not being made.

What I am saying, is that it is necessary to make double damned sure he isn't, meaning that regardless of the accusations, his life since toddlerhood should have been under a microscope, every fly he de-winged, every action he undertook while drinking, every single time he behaved improperly, since year dot, to make CERTAIN that he is not some sort of sicko, and that should be the case for everyone seeking powerful office. The fact that it appears that there is no effective undertaking to ensure standards are RIDICULOUSLY high when it comes to these powerful figures, should be a source of concern for everyone, not just people on the left of matters.

And again, lets be clear here... your position on this matter DOES, regardless of your protestations, mean that you are more comfortable with the possibility that a sexual predator could become a supreme court justice, than you would be with taking proper and effective steps to make sure that no one of that ilk could even be considered for the position, and that IS a big deal, making you part of the problem, not its solution.

There is no angle to approach the matter from which even remotely amounts to a substantive argument against that fact. Its just how it is. Now, you could try and own your total degeneracy by admitting it, and at least that would be intellectually honest of you, because your response indictates that YES you DO prefer taking the risk, over making sure there isn't one. But there is another option. Evolve. Move forward about three generations and actually join the rest of the human race in the present, rather than living in the pre-Nixon era your brain occupies.

a reply to: ignorant_ape


Sorry, I have no idea what you are saying. Try putting some structure to your comments.

a reply to: TrueBrit

No where did I say that Kavanaugh is or has been proven to be a sexual predator.

If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested

Seems like you've "proven" it to yourself.

I don't enjoy mental duels with unarmed opponents.

a reply to: DrChandra

What it seems to you, and what I wrote, appear to be two totally different things. Again, you responded to an argument that was not being made, and that is your fault. Its entirely normal of course, because its so much easier to respond to an argument you imagined, than it is to respond to reality.

I appreciate that, but its still best to try and focus on what is being stated, rather than what is not.

a reply to: TrueBrit

How many of the people sitting in that committee making accusations received the benefits of the Congressional Hush Fund?

The answer is that we don't know because the only person in the history of history who has received this kind of "due diligence" and for whom this standard now seems to matter is Brett Kavanaugh, and the reason for that is because holding him to that kind of political standard has suddenly become politically expedient for some parties sitting on that committee.

What the American people actually think or feel about this in the larger context matters not one whit. If it did, the lists of names related to that fund would have been thrown open and seen the light of day to the public along with knowledge of its existence.

There are many rights we are supposed to have under the constitution, which we don't have, not just due-process. Asset forfeiture is also a direct violation of due-process. According to the constitution the right of a people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, yet we see it infringed with unconstitutional public gun free zones & countless people on the left infringing on our right to own guns on a regular basis. The constitution also states that gold/silver are money & that congress is supposed to regulate the weights and measures of money. They have not done this since the private Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913. In 1971 Nixon took is off the gold standard, now every dollar one makes today is worth less tomorrow. The U.S. dollar has lost @90% of its value since 1971. FDR suspended the constitution in 1933 through special emergency war powers, this is known as the NDAA today. The U.S. has been in continuous war since 1933. This allowed for illegal government alphabet agencies to be established which presume the guilt of individuals, in direct violation of the constitution. Another violation was Obama's repeal of the Smith Mundt Act in 2013, which re-allowed the use of government propaganda domestically on U.S. citizens. Here are some of the corrupt ties during Obama's presidency, some of which are still in place today.
1) ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser. Susan Rice is now on the board of directors of Netflix.
2) CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
3) ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney.
4) ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.
5) ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
6) CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

Our founding fathers wanted a nation based on life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They wanted to maintain these natural rights by having limited government, with due-process & privacy/property rights. Abortion is anti-life & lack of privacy/property rights is anti-liberty. The lack of these basic rights denies us our pursuit of happiness. Its none of the government's business to know what type of business one is operating or how much money one has or makes. Also taxes are voluntary.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: neo96

There is no judge Judy and executioner.

This is not a trial.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: DrChandra

Not on trial
No right to due process

Someone else who don't understand

Okay, let's address this claim that, since this is not a judicial trial, there is no right to due process (underlined portions of quotes my own emphasis):

Non-Judicial Proceedings.— A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process. Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the Due Process Clause. Moreover, the Due Process Clause does not require de novo judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies, and may not require judicial review at all. Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from conferring judicial functions upon non-judicial bodies, or from delegating powers to a court that are legislative in nature. Further, it is up to a state to determine to what extent its legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be kept distinct and separate.

law.justia.com

These things are so simple to research that I don't understand why people don't do it before making claims like 'there's no right to due process because it's not a judicial proceeding.' It is utter nonsense that needs to stop being perpetuated, and you really shouldn't tell people that they don't understand something if you're wrong in your assertion.

Let us continue:

The Procedure That Is Due Process

The Interests Protected: “Life, Liberty and Property”.— The language of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the provision of due process when an interest in one’s “life, liberty or property” is threatened.

...

The Liberty Interest.— With respect to liberty interests, the Court has followed a similarly meandering path. Although the traditional concept of liberty was freedom from physical restraint, the Court has expanded the concept to include various other protected interests, some statutorily created and some not. ...

The Court also appeared to have expanded the notion of “liberty” to include the right to be free of official stigmatization, and found that such threatened stigmatization could in and of itself require due process. Thus, in Wisconsin v. Constantineau, the Court invalidated a statutory scheme in which persons could be labeled “excessive drinkers,” without any opportunity for a hearing and rebuttal, and could then be barred from places where alcohol was served. The Court, without discussing the source of the entitlement, noted that the governmental action impugned the individual’s reputation, honor, and integrity.

But, in Paul v. Davis, the Court appeared to retreat from recognizing damage to reputation alone, holding instead that the liberty interest extended only to those situations where loss of one’s reputation also resulted in loss of a statutory entitlement. In Davis, the police had included plaintiff’s photograph and name on a list of “active shoplifters” circulated to merchants without an opportunity for notice or hearing. But the Court held that “Kentucky law does not extend to respondent any legal guarantee of present enjoyment of reputation which has been altered as a result of petitioners’ actions. Rather, his interest in reputation is simply one of a number which the State may protect against injury by virtue of its tort law, providing a forum for vindication of those interest by means of damage actions.”841 Thus, unless the government’s official defamation has a specific negative effect on an entitlement, such as the denial to “excessive drinkers” of the right to obtain alcohol that occurred in Constantineau, there is no protected liberty interest that would require due process.

So, what you'll hopefully notice is that the Kavanaugh hearing was an absolute defamation of character that, if enough people believe it, will have a direct effect on his entitlement to be judged (no pun intended) on his capabilities as a federal judge and decent adult and be appointment to a job for which he was nominated (and was basically a shoe-in prior to the allegations and hearing). This defamation will also affect him in his profession from this point on, if people are willing to believe the unproven allegations, which at this point includes many senators and congressmen.

Since this hearing and weeks of dealing with the allegation(s) have tarnished his otherwise good reputation as a human being and a judge (even if I find fault in some of his interpretations of the constitution), he is entitled due process before these elected government officials who are responsible for casting a confirmation vote just assume that he is guilty and use that as a means to deprive him of a seat as a SCOTUS justice.

Even though it's "not a trial."

Here's more, if you want to keep reading (it's a good site with a LOT of information on Due Process):

Burden of Proof and Presumptions.— It is clearly within the domain of the legislative branch of government to establish presumptions and rules respecting burden of proof in litigation. Nonetheless, the Due Process Clause does prevent the deprivation of liberty or property upon application of a standard of proof too lax to make reasonable assurance of accurate factfinding. Thus, “[t]he function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’”

Here, you have to understand that "a particular type of adjudication" can be applied to the opinions and votes of the members of the senate (the voting body), since a judicial hearing is not necessary for the application of the standards of Due Process.

Hopefully this helps some people out, but the bottom-line, TLDR point is this:

NO, A TRIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IS NOT A PREREQUISITE
FOR THE APPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS

They say that only as an excuse to treat another human being unjustly. They’re wrong, of course, as anyone can be given due process, court of law or not.

This is doubly frightening hearing that argument because it is an excuse to avoid defending another human beings rights. Not only will they treat another unjustly because there is no law to do otherwise, it also appears they need laws to teach them what is right or wrong, what is just and unjust. Unfortunately for them a law can be wrong and unjust.

Frankly, they share the mindset of those who participate in lynch mobs.