Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 12:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: Which is better guys? A list of 10 people with a link to prove it. Or me naming one. Just for Bfine I am going to go to my list and name a name since that seems to be what's preferred here. Seems silly to me, but anything outside of common sense seems silly to me.

Here Bfine. Just for you.

Russel Ford. He wasn't at the event, however he was an important witness to her claims. If you want specifics to the event then I'll mention Kav himself.

Also just because I'll add her therapist. Whom she told of her assault prior to Kav even being nominated.

All of which is discussed in the links I provided.

It's a sad state of affairs for Trump supporters.

Neither of the names you provided were at the event in question. The scope of the investigation was did Kavs commit sexual assault. not what various folks thought of his character.

She never mentioned Kavs name to her therapist, but the therapist's notes have been examined and they differ from Ford's recollection.

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 12:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Kennedy was the major swing vote.  This does hurt them.  Roberts was the swing in the healthcare vote.

True Kennedy was a swing vote, but Roberts has proven to be able to put politics aside for the law, and as the 5th vote, I trust him to uphold the court to the highest standards. Regardless if I agree with all his decisions or not.

[Bengalzona]

(10-05-2018, 12:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: True, but Justice Scalia was hyper partisan. He didn't let it show in his hearing like Kav (mistakenly) did, but he was always on Fox News and taking shots at Dems etc. So they are trying to replace a hard right justice with another hard right justice. Which just cancels it out.

Last year, the GOP was claiming that the Gorsuch pick was to replace Scalia. That was the justification behind not allowing the Merrick Garland nomination to be voted on. How many Scalias do they need?

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 12:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Neither of the names you provided were at the event in question. The scope of the investigation was did Kavs commit sexual assault. not what various folks thought of his character.

She never mentioned Kavs name to her therapist, but the therapist's notes have been examined and they differ from Ford's recollection.

I haven't heard that. Where are you getting that from?

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 12:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Last year, the GOP was claiming that the Gorsuch pick was to replace Scalia. That was the justification behind not allowing the Merrick Garland nomination to be voted on. How many Scalias do they need?

Well we certainly don't need a lot of them. I didn't find Gorsuch to be a bad nominee tho. Not quite sure he was as bad as Scalia. Maybe that was just political rhetoric for their base? Hopefully. I didn't agree with the stolen seat tactic, but I don't think Gorsuch hurt his candidacy and gave a real reason why he wasn't fit for the Supreme Court the way that Kav (even without the accusations) did during his hearing.

Votes do matter, and Republicans were rewarded for their "we'll steal a seat" tactic from these same people crying foul over Kav. You have to respect the ability of the POTUS to pick their supreme court nominee (no matter the party Trump supporters).

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 12:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: I haven't heard that. Where are you getting that from?

This all came out at the hearing. The only person that mentions Kavs by name is Ford's husband. He says he remembers his wife saying the name at the session; however, therapist's notes do not list a name.

There are discrepancies about the year, people there, and location. If you use the her notes to the therapist she states she was in her late teens; unfortunately, that would mean that Kavs could not be there so when interviewed by WAPO she changed it to 15.

[Benton]

(10-05-2018, 12:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Last year, the GOP was claiming that the Gorsuch pick was to replace Scalia. That was the justification behind not allowing the Merrick Garland nomination to be voted on. How many Scalias do they need?

According to McConnell, Congress, the White House and every justice on the SC has to be conservative before they can make the world a utopia. Until then, all they can do is pass tax cuts on big businesses and the rich, and increase the national debt trillions at a time. So, the answer is: all of them.

(10-05-2018, 12:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: I haven't heard that. Where are you getting that from?

A few entertainment sites (I can't call them news, they're just click bait) have made the claim that anonymous lawmakers wouldn't release the notes because they don't substantiate Ford's claim. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2018, 12:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Last year, the GOP was claiming that the Gorsuch pick was to replace Scalia. That was the justification behind not allowing the Merrick Garland nomination to be voted on. How many Scalias do they need?

9

[GMDino]

One thing I have learned through all this is that I am glad the US Justice system would never convict someone based solely on one one witness without any evidence to prove it.  

If it's he said/she said we just move along.  No need to do any "investigations" or "talk to anyone else".  Especially if it's an old crime.  Best to just leave those alone anyway. 

[GMDino]

Kavanaugh's Op-Ed in the WSJ explaining his testimony reads like the guy telling his girl he just beat up that "you know that's not me" and "I'll be better next time, I swear".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: ...and then points out that solely laying "partisanship" on the side of the Democrats is a fallacy.


No, I just figured I'd give you a shot before I had to waste part of my morning doing this.








Then after the THIRD allegation a bit of a change of heart....




You didn't want an investigation and you didn't see a need for one because it was a long time ago, you don't think they can prove it and you believe he is innocent because, well, you.  

And you're not the only one.

You don't have to own that.  But don't tell me I'm "making stuff up".

You do realize that not one post that you quoted contains my saying what you accused me of saying.  However, there is a post in which I say an investigation was necessary.  Seriously, you wasted all that time and still failed hard.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 02:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You do realize that not one post that you quoted contains my saying what you accused me of saying.  However, there is a post in which I say an investigation was necessary.  Seriously, you wasted all that time and still failed hard.

You do realize you said all the words that meant that but didn't say "the exact words".


You, for purely partisan reasons, did not think any of this was true and therefore no need for investigation...until the THIRD accusation (which I acknowledged).    


And even if there was was all on the Democrats that there was "no time" to do a good one.

And you "know" he is innocent because, you.
It's sad, but I didn't expect you to admit what you said, just deny what you didn't "exactly say".

[GMDino]

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-05-2018, 11:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone else on the planet would.

Why do you automatically label the child a liar and believe the babysitter?

Why would you automatically label the child a victim and the babysitter a predator??

Questions need to be asked to both sides. It could be something as simple as the child is trying to "get even" with the baby sitter for making them go to bed early or smacking them on the butt etc. and not understanding the consequences of their comment correctly.

Find out the facts before you assume anything.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 02:53 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Quick, get the meme to your local liberal elected official before it's too late.

[GMDino]

When someone reads it and still doesn't admit it AND still blames the other side.

(10-05-2018, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quick, get the meme to your local liberal elected official before it's too late.

It's so much fun.

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 03:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Find out the facts before you assume anything.

I agree with you.  Bfine is the one saying we have to assume everyone is innocent until the facts prove they are guilty.

99% of the population is not going to let a person babysit their child when another child has claimed to be sexually assaulted by that babysitter.  They would not use the babysitter again unless there was definitive proof that the babysitter was innocent.  Just "lack of corroboration" would not be enough.

"Presumption of innocence" is not as common as some people here seem to believe.  When most juries are seated and you ask them they will say that they are not making any presumption of either guilt or innocence until they hear the evidence.  That is why many criminal defense attorneys will address the presumption of innocence in opening statement.  A criminal trial is one of the VERY FEW places where it is proper to make a presumption without hearing any facts or evidence at all.

[Benton]

(10-05-2018, 03:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why would you automatically label the child a victim and the babysitter a predator??

Questions need to be asked to both sides. It could be something as simple as the child is trying to "get even" with the baby sitter for making them go to bed early or smacking them on the butt etc. and not understanding the consequences of their comment correctly.

Find out the facts before you assume anything.

Unfortunately, that's not what happens these days. Anywhere, for anybody.

Take the Kav accusations. An hour after the first story, GOP lawmakers were firing off press releases on what a swell guy he was. Within the first day, you had liberal lawmakers ready to condemn him. And any call for the only reasonable solution — an outside, nonpartisan look at the events and possible inconsistencies in either person's story — was slandered as political. By both sides. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with you.  Bfine is the one saying we have to assume everyone is innocent until the facts prove they are guilty.

99% of the population is not going to let a person babysit their child when another child has claimed to be sexually assaulted by that babysitter.  They would not use the babysitter again unless there was definitive proof that the babysitter was innocent.  Just "lack of corroboration" would not be enough.

"Presumption of innocence" is not as common as some people here seem to believe.  When most juries are seated and you ask them they will say that they are not making any presumption of either guilt or innocence until they hear the evidence.  That is why many criminal defense attorneys will address the presumption of innocence in opening statement.  A criminal trial is one of the VERY FEW places where it is proper to make a presumption without hearing any facts or evidence at all.

I didn't say you had to assume anything. I said removing presumption of innocence tears at our very fabric as a Nation. Ever read "To Kill A Mockingbird?" That's an example of the adults siding with the children without evidence.

Are you actually saying that Kavs testifying under oath to respond to a accusation shouldn't be given the presumption of innocence or are you just talking out your ass?

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't say you had to assume anything. I said removing presumption of innocence tears at our very fabric as a Nation. 

Uh, so we do not have to "assume" but we have to "presume" in order to preserve the nation?

Could you explain the difference between "assume" and "presume" because you just lost me.