The Kavanaugh hearings.

[Jeep]

I’m open to debate on whether we default to court rulings on eligibility or we have some other means to investigate wrong doing. I am NEVER going to concede the principle that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty by their accuser. I will NEVER concede to the idea that it’s an accused’s responsibility to prove their innocence.

So go prove to people that what these women are saying is true. Show up tell your story, offer evidence and do your thing. Offering up terms, and afraid to fly... is BS and we all know it.

I’ve lived in a system that had the opposite. You must prove you didn’t speak out against the state or you get a bullet in the head. Prove you’re not going to do X or didn’t do Y or you can’t have a job.

Trust me on this: you DO NOT want to degenerate our legal system to that status.

Well, since a significant fraction of the American population apparently believes that we ought to go full Venezuela, and since a similar fraction (mainly the same folks) think that legal judgments ought to be based on what "groups" you belong to, there is a fair chance that we will see that sort of system here within a few years.

Indeed, while no bullets to the head are being administered (yet), people suspected of thoughtcrimes are routinely fired in much of corporate America and expelled in much of college America. It is, admittedly a bit step from firing/expulsion to execution, but the groundwork is being done.

[Sensei]

Interesting article on how the court has become a political entity and the idea of a neutral set of justices actually applying the law is a mythology.

Justices decide based on their philosophy and then figure out how to rationalize it with blather. Both sides do it.

I note this viewpoint drives some lawyers nuts as they somehow regard their profession as the height of intellectual and moral purity.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...diciary-220530

Both parties, once again, need to be eliminated. We should not have litmus test nuts of either side controlling who runs for office and how you must vote in office.

Of course, if you know your litmus is the word of the Divine or the one true ideology, you are unable to see this threat to our country.

Republicans took the Biden theory that a SOTUS nominee should not go forward in an election year and actually put it into practice when they blocked Garland simply because he was Obama’s nominee in an election year. Thus, they essentially lowered the standard to oppose a nominee to the trivial and arbitrary. Are the Dem’s reasons for opposing Kavanaugh any more or less legitimate than the Republican’s reasons for opposing Garland? Probably not - both are ridiculous.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag thanks to the treatment of Garland. We have lowered the standards for opposing SCOTUS nominees and invoked the Nuclear Option to compensate for the resulting lack of concensus. The result is now a hyper political judiciary.

[TAZ]

Nobody is asking you to change your standard of innocent until proven guilty. Just understand that your standard, which is the standard of a criminal prosecution, is not applicable since Kavanaugh has not been indicted or facing a criminal trial. Although his alleged actions would be a crime under the applicable statues of limitations, this is really an issue of employment suitability which is essentially a civil matter. In civil matters, the plaintiff’s standard is simply a preponderance of evidence - not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is how OJ was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her boyfriend, but deemed responsible for their deaths in the civil trial - two different burdens for criminal vs. civil actions. Thus, Dr. Ford could theoretically prevail on credibility alone if her story was air tight and Kavanaugh wore a Grab’em by the Hello Kitty T-shirt into the hearing. Moreover, the Consitution simply states that the Senate must give advice and consent, and leaves Senators to their own devices on what standard should be met for suitability. Is it any surprise that progressive Senators set a ridiculous standard?

Fortunately, where we probably agree is that neither Dr. Ford nor this latest accuser(s) are able to meet a preponderance of evidence standard (and perhaps not even a remote possibility standard) based on what we know so far. In fact, I would think that he’d have a good libel case against both accusers if he were not a public personality.

I’m not a true believer in the whole preponderance of evidence thing in civil court. I would prefer that we have some reasonableness involved and the onus being on the accuser needing to show proof; not just who can fling poop more efficiently. Sadly, I don’t have details worked out on a better option to offer up, so I’ll abide by it.

With that said: let’s get on with proving that Kavanaugh did what these women are saying he did. Give me names, dates, locations, and other verifiable facts that corroborate the accusations and let the defendant shoot holes in them as best they can. Not well..... I can’t come Monday cause I have a hair appointment. I don’t want to face the guy whose life I’m wrecking...

[StraitR]

Of course, they found new women. As soon as they finally agree to a time and date, the dems spring new allegations. What are the odds ofthat?

The dems are turning this process into a third world banana republic kangaroo court.

And now Michael Avenatti is in the game, claiming to have what appears to be another woman lined up. Also claims to have knowledge of Kavanaugh and Judge targeting women with drugs and alcohol so that others could "gang rape them".

I sure as hell hope somebody comes out with some real evidence on this. If they keep pushing for an FBI investigation, they may bite off more than they can chew, and get one. This is getting big enough that both sides are going to have some real skin in the game. No little harmless snicker, where everyone goes home to a book deal, if all this turns out to be political terrorism. There needs to be some asses behind bars, regardless of public service position, wealth, or power. These women aren't just coming forward 25-35 years later out of "civic duty", they're being drummed up by someone. What a circus.

From FoxNews...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...peratives.html

[Palmguy]

What an incredibly stupid time to be alive.

[Palmguy]

The good news?

Republicans now have a compelling reason to vote in November.

Depends on how this plays out. If Grassley can't even get this thing out of committee in the next week, to say nothing of Cocaine Mitch failing to hold the full Republican caucus together to confirm Kavanaugh, November might not be pretty.

[critter]

Depends on how this plays out. If Grassley can't even get this thing out of committee in the next week, to say nothing of Cocaine Mitch failing to hold the full Republican caucus together to confirm Kavanaugh, November might not be pretty.

If the Rep's step up and show some strength and actual leadership against these nutters there will be a red wave. By tolerating the lunacy, pandering and caving, a large percentage of those who would have shown up to vote -- for them -- won't bother bothering. This continuous self sabotage would be hilarious were it not so pitiful.

[RJ]

The good news?

Republicans now have a compelling reason to vote in November.

I’m not an R (nor a D), but all this crap is starting to piss me off, just like in 2016. I will definitely look at the individual candidates like always, but the way the Senate Democrats are trying to run out the SCOTUS clock here is pretty pathetic.

[einherjarvalk]

I'm not an R either, but I'm 100% sure to vote like one out of pure spite for what the Democrats have done to me and continue to do to us as a whole.

Grassley and McConnell's comments today suggest they're tired of the circus too and that Ford's hearing will be as much as they're willing to do now. Feinstein is being Feinstein and going "we need to delay another week to hear the new accuser and let her (read: Dems) fill in the gaps in her memory." I hope they cram Kavanaugh down her throat.

[StraitR]

I’m not an R (nor a D), but all this crap is starting to piss me off, just like in 2016. I will definitely look at the individual candidates like always, but the way the Senate Democrats are trying to run out the SCOTUS clock here is pretty pathetic.

Therein lies the rub, for me. I'm all for having these women be heard, but this slow-play nonsense only makes me question their credibility. They sure seem to be playing a political game, not looking for justice. You want to be heard, fair enough, come take a seat when you're invited. Instead, they're dodging requests to appear, hiring every high-profile Dem lawyer, and working ferociously to condemn Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion before even filing an official police report against the accused. It's a travesty. Regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh, I think the Dems/left are yet again inadvertently inspiring the conservative voters to show up in November.

My biggest regret in voting for Trump, is how he's lowered the standard of acceptable behavior in Washington. I get that it's always been bad, but it's generally been secretly bad until exposed. Now it's just outright shameless shenanigans, for all to see. Democratic Senators saying "I believe her". Really? Based on what? She hasn't given a sworn statement, hasn't shown up to the hearing and told her story. What could you possibly believe in, other than her accusations work to stop a SCOTUS nominee that you can't stop otherwise. What a freaking joke.