The Kavanaugh hearings.

[Mntneer357]

The precedent which needs to be set in one of "fuck you" this isn't the venue for unsubstantiated claims, innuendo, or screaming shit shows. Confirm immediately and send the spastic fools off crying to the Enquirer where they belong.

This. Very much this. You, sir, get a like.

You're complaining about something that happened 30+ years ago, if we agree to assume it even took place? Nope. Statute of limitations is long gone.

Also, proof or be gone. You make the accusation, you better have some sort of smoking gun. Any alleged "proof" that is paid for by/comes from/sponsored by the Clinton Foundation is inadmissible as anything resembling proof.

[RoyGBiv]

If doing stupid shit in HS and college (unproven and unindicted, too) disqualifies one from public service, we should apply that test to EVERYONE currently in public service.
The resulting purge would balance the budget.

[Zincwarrior]

If doing stupid shit in HS and college (unproven and unindicted, too) disqualifies one from public service, we should apply that test to EVERYONE currently in public service.
The resulting purge would balance the budget.

Have to differ on one point. Assault ing someone is not "stupid shit." If true he should be out of the running. Too many good justices. As noted, SCOTUS doesn't have to come only from Yale and Harvard.

[TAZ]

Have to differ on one point. Assault ing someone is not "stupid shit." If true he should be out of the running. Too many good justices. As noted, SCOTUS doesn't have to come only from Yale and Harvard.

So go about proving he is guilty of something instead of pulling the usual BS drive by accusations and then disappear back into the woodwork. People are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law. We have a process for that, do we not??

This is ALL a bunch of crap. In the end, women in general are going to be the brunt of this. Real victims of sexual assault are going to be blown off as yet another woman crying wolf. NOT GOOD!!! Women will be shunned from the workforce. Who in their right mind is going to want to deal with this crap? If unsubstantiated accusations can screw up a SCOTUS nominee, what do you think it will do to a mere mortal? NOT GOOD!!!

All of that collateral carnage for what? Political grandstanding by the very people who purport they want to enable women.

As for the Harvard, Yale, Ivy League folks... agree 100%. We have spent decades with these people running the show and where are we. $20TT in debt. How many millions living off the backs of others? How many billions in trade deficit?? How many billions in other forms of debt unaccounted for? How many millions of criminals roaming the streets??

[HCountyGuy]

Well, saw this coming a mile off as soon as accuser #1’s story started unraveling.

You can bet there’s more of this to be had if/when accuser #2 is made a fool of for this stunt. They’re stalling for midterms and are hoping the mere accusations against Kavanaugh will mobilize enough SJWs to help get more Dems in office to block the president’s nomination(s) til he’s out of office.

Were it up to me I’d say any other accusers have til the end of the week to bring up their stories. If there’s no credible evidence provided with their claims, no seat at the table.

This side show needs to end yesterday.

[Sensei]

So go about proving he is guilty of something instead of pulling the usual BS drive by accusations and then disappear back into the woodwork. People are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law. We have a process for that, do we not??

Are they? The left has come out and said that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is the standard for criminal prosecution; it’s not the standard for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. The left would tell you that a much higher standard exists for this position. To some extent, I probably agree with them in that there are plenty of people who have never been convicted of a crime that nonetheless should never sit on the high court (or any public office). People who disagree and hold the “innocent until proven guilty for everything” notion would theoretically be comfortable with Hillary being nominated to the high court or OJ Simpson dating their daughter. In fact, there would be no real need for a background investigation at all before we hire cops, issue security clearances, or appoint justices - just a criminal records review and no convictions means suitable for hire, right?

No. On second thought, innocent until proven guilty is a great standard before the State removes your life, liberty, or property. However, it’s a pretty shitty standard for determining who is elegible for highly sensitive positions of public trust. It’s also follows the same logical fallacy that freedom of speech means freedom to say whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want, and without employment repercussions. It conflates constitutional protections on freedom with hiring decisions and the two are in no way equal.

The problem that I have with the left’s standard is this notion that ANY accusation by a liberal woman against a conservative male must be accepted as credible due to the inherent sociopolitical constructs (i.e. all conservative men are abusers of women by the shear nature of their policy positions). Of course, progressives accept a different standard for accusations leveled against a liberal male by a conservative women due to those same sociopolitical constructs that largely view conservative women as traitors to their gender. In progressive La La Land, you literally need a race / gender dope chart perpetually strapped to you forearm to judge the myriad combinations of social justice merit behind an accusation. God help you if you are a white conservative male being sexually harassed by a black shemale - you’re screwed.

I suppose that my problem with these accusations, and particularly with the accusers themselves, is that they do not seem credible based on what we know from media reports. In fact, they stike me as outright lies being perpetuated to derail a nominee at the last minute. Perhaps I’d feel differently if the women had consistent stories or witnesses that actually supported their recollection of events...any aspect of the events.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[RoyGBiv]

The good news?

Republicans now have a compelling reason to vote in November.

[TAZ]

Are they? The left has come out and said that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is the standard for criminal prosecution; it’s not the standard for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. The left would tell you that a much higher standard exists for this position. To some extent, I probably agree with them in that there are plenty of people who have never been convicted of a crime that nonetheless should never sit on the high court (or any public office). People who disagree and hold the “innocent until proven guilty for everything” notion would theoretically be comfortable with Hillary being nominated to the high court or OJ Simpson dating their daughter. In fact, there would be no real need for a background investigation at all before we hire cops, issue security clearances, or appoint justices - just a criminal records review and no convictions means suitable for hire, right?

No. On second thought, innocent until proven guilty is a great standard before the State removes your life, liberty, or property. However, it’s a pretty shitty standard for determining who is elegible for highly sensitive positions of public trust. It’s also follows the same logical fallacy that freedom of speech means freedom to say whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want, and without employment repercussions. It conflates constitutional protections on freedom with hiring decisions and the two are in no way equal.

The problem that I have with the left’s standard is this notion that ANY accusation by a liberal woman against a conservative male must be accepted as credible due to the inherent sociopolitical constructs (i.e. all conservative men are abusers of women by the shear nature of their policy positions). Of course, progressives accept a different standard for accusations leveled against a liberal male by a conservative women due to those same sociopolitical constructs that largely view conservative women as traitors to their gender. In progressive La La Land, you literally need a race / gender dope chart perpetually strapped to you forearm to judge the myriad combinations of social justice merit behind an accusation. God help you if you are a white conservative male being sexually harassed by a black shemale - you’re screwed.

I suppose that my problem with these accusations, and particularly with the accusers themselves, is that they do not seem credible based on what we know from media reports. In fact, they stike me as outright lies being perpetuated to derail a nominee at the last minute. Perhaps I’d feel differently if the women had consistent stories or witnesses that actually supported their recollection of events...any aspect of the events.

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.

[Sensei]

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.

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.