Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You've been asked a point blank question and perhaps you could provide a point blank answer: Should Kavs testifying under oath before the senate to answer allegations of sexual assault be extended the presumption of innocence? 

It does take a red herring and it doesn't take a smilely thingy: It takes a yes or no. 

And I gave you my answer.  Read it very slowly and see if you can figure it out.

(10-05-2018, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think there should be either a "presumption" or "assumption". 

I know you struggle with answers longer than one word, but this one really isn't that tough to figure out.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 09:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I gave you my answer.  Read it very slowly and see if you can figure it out.


I know you struggle with answers longer than one word, but this one really isn't that tough to figure out.

Not as much as you struggle with giving a one word answer. I read it slowly and deciphered that you think that Kavs testifying under oath to defend himself against being accused of a crime should not be extended the presumption of innocence. 

I did notice you failed to quote or answer my request for clarification on your view of civil cases.

Thanks for that"counselor". 

[Dill]

(10-05-2018, 05:53 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That was sort of my take on Gorsuch. While I personally didn't/don't like him, there was nothing outstanding saying he would not be a good pick for SCOTUS.

Not really. IMO he picked a guy with good credentials, but several possible warts here. When people called out the possibility of warts, Trumpists started vehemently denying they needed to be examined. Blind partisanship.

Fascinating now how unexpected, unprecedented and diverse resistance to the Kavanaugh confirmation has become.

2400 Law professors sign a letter protesting Kavanaugh's confirmation, largely because of the temperament issue, the instability displayed during his self-defense at the hearing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.22ec1cb77f3a

Retired Justice Stevens, who originally supported Kavanaugh, has withdrawn his endorsement for the same reason.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/retired-justice-stevens-calls-kavanaughs-hearing-performance-disqualifying/2018/10/04/70c4a36e-c81a-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?utm_term=.95c25b8bf5af

From the far far right comes the argument that Kavanaugh is himself part of the "Deep State" because he helped cover up the Vince Foster murder. https://americasurvival.org/

But most interesting is America, the Jesuit magazine's, revocation their endorsement, because the allegations of sexual assault were not properly vetted.  An argument from principle sounds so strange in contemporary politics.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

If this were a question of establishing Judge Kavanaugh’s legal or moral responsibility for the assault described by Dr. Blasey, then far more stringent standards of proof would apply. His presumption of innocence might settle the matter in his favor, absent further investigation and new evidence. But the question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are, as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”

What is different this time is that this nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court. It now involves the symbolic meaning of his nomination and confirmation in the #MeToo era. The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.

Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.
...............................................................................................................................................................................
The points about "presumption of innocence" line up pretty well with Fred's above comments on the matter.

The authors are not "liberals" or part of "the left." The argument is based on a (self-described) CONSERVATIVE interpretation of the role of the courts.  Most significant to me is the argument that the confirmation now has a symbolic force beyond one man's qualifications. It has become a statement about how we, as a nation, will regard allegations of sexual assault going forward.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: The points about "presumption of innocence" line up pretty well with Fred's above comments on the matter.

The authors are not "liberals" or part of "the left." The argument is based on a (self-described) CONSERVATIVE interpretation of the role of the courts.  Most significant to me is the argument that the confirmation now has a symbolic force beyond one man's qualifications. It has become a statement about how we, as a nation, will regard allegations of sexual assault going forward.

I'll add you with Fred who assert the presumption of innocence is not a basic human right. Even thought the UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over a 1/2 Century ago which states: It is a basic human right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. 

Why do you, Fred, and others deny Kavs this basic human right? 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2018, 05:48 PM)Dill Wrote: I wouldn't say there was ZERO evidence.  Ford's testimony is evidence. The question is only how much weight it can be given and to what degree it can be corroborated.  That is why questions can be legitimately asked about Ford's background, when she made the allegations, to whom, whether there are inconsistencies in her account over time, etc.

And it is not true that Kavanaugh cannot defend himself.  He can deny the allegation outright, point to his record, call on character witnesses, and the like.  "Lack of detail," to the degree there is such, is to Kavanaugh's advantage.

That’s kinda why I wrote “corroborating “ after zero.

You can’t even present an alibi because you don’t know what day it was supposed to have occurred. Maybe you can’t anyway because of the amount of time that has passed, but it would be nice to have a date. I’m still trying to find out if she said different years. Haven’t had time to really look.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 11:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s kinda why I wrote “corroborating “ after zero.

You can’t even present an alibi because you don’t know what day it was supposed to have occurred. Maybe you can’t anyway because of the amount of time that has passed, but it would be nice to have a date. I’m still trying to find out if she said different years.  Haven’t had time to really look.

These folks cannot even extend Kavs the basic human right as presumed innocence; do you really think they care about such trivial matters as alibis?

[Dill]

(10-05-2018, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll add you with Fred who assert the presumption of innocence is not a basic human right. Even thought the UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over a 1/2 Century ago which states: It is a basic human right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. 

Why do you, Fred, and others deny Kavs this basic human right? 

I am not sure I can untangle this for you better than Fred or the Jesuit Fathers.  But I'll try.

1. No one disagrees that in a "court of law"--specifically a criminal trial--Kavanaugh would be owed the presumption of innocence. So please stop saying that people are denying him a basic human right. 

2. Millions of people find the allegations of Ford et al. credible. Kavanaugh's own awkward denials, and their conflict with what other friends have said about his youthful drinking, have raised serious questions about his integrity and appropriateness for the highest court in the land. As the America editors argue, the handling of the allegations has made the confirmation about more than just that. It has become a referendum on how allegations of sexual assault will be handled by those in power. Trump's public mocking/mimicing of Ford going public with allegations of sexual assault put the seal on that.

3. Finally, no one has a "basic human right" to a Supreme Court confirmation. Hearings about the suitability of a nominee are not held in a "court of law."  As Justice Stevens and the 2400 law professors cited above note, federal judges are held to higher standards of suitability for office. There is less tolerance for APPEARANCE of conflicts of interest and impropriety. If Kavanaugh is accused of impropriety, then those tasked with assessing the accusation are not in the position of jurors who must meet a high level of certainty to determine guilt. Their task is not only to assess the possible truth of the accusation as far as they can, but also the character of the nominee.  They are not bound in this by statutes of limitation and the evidentiary standards of criminal law. The accusations swirling around Kavanaugh, and his subsequent, flippant behavior--especially the partisan threat that "what goes around comes around" (just wait till I get on the bench!)--unfit him for the job.  His confirmation will drag questions of partisanship into the court itself, further undermining its already fragile legitimacy. 

When all is said and done, whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, his "basic human rights" will not have been violated. No one has to presume him innocent if he or she finds Ford's testimony more credible than Kavanaugh's denial.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll add you with Fred who assert the presumption of innocence is not a basic human right. Even thought the UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over a 1/2 Century ago which states: It is a basic human right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. 

Why do you, Fred, and others deny Kavs this basic human right? 

(10-05-2018, 11:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These folks cannot even extend Kavs the basic human right as presumed innocence; do you really think they care about such trivial matters as alibis?

When I see an uncommon phrase used repeatedly by the right wing noise machine I wonder how it got into their lexicon so fast.

Oh, look....three days ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-brett-kavanaugh-is-presumed-innocent-20181002-story.html

Quote:As Democrats should be well aware, the presumption of innocence is considered by most to be a basic human right. Just ask the United Nations. In Article 11 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his [sic] defence.”


And let’s dispatch with the idea that the presumption of innocence applies only to court proceedings, in which your liberty itself is at stake. It doesn’t.



There’s a reason why, when people are accused of crimes, the news media refers to the claims as “alleged.” It’s because in a civil society, we’ve had a longstanding norm that one person pointing the finger isn’t enough to smear another person with a deleterious label for the rest of his or her life.

While I'm CERTAIN no one on this board would ever read something and regurgitate it as their own without sourcing it I do find it strange.

[Dill]

(10-05-2018, 11:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s kinda why I wrote “corroborating “ after zero.

You can’t even present an alibi because you don’t know what day it was supposed to have occurred. Maybe you can’t anyway because of the amount of time that has passed, but it would be nice to have a date. I’m still trying to find out if she said different years.  Haven’t had time to really look.

If your accuser cannot name a date, then you don't need an alibi.

The danger is that she could always point to that calendar you brought to court to exonerate yourself--the one where you marked down July 1, 1982, the day you went to JImmy's for "skis" with Judge and Pj, the boys named in the allegation.

[Dill]

(10-06-2018, 12:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: When I see an uncommon phrase used repeatedly by the right wing noise machine I wonder how it got into their lexicon so fast.

Oh, look....three days ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-brett-kavanaugh-is-presumed-innocent-20181002-story.html


While I'm CERTAIN no one on this board would ever read something and regurgitate it as their own without sourcing it I do find it strange.

Maybe that was Collins' source as well. She was high on the presumption of innocence while explaining why she would vote for Kavanaugh.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2018, 12:28 AM)Dill Wrote: If your accuser cannot name a date, then you don't need an alibi.

The danger is that she could always point to that calendar you brought to court to exonerate yourself--the one where you marked down July 1, 1982, the day you went to JImmy's for "skis" with Judge and Pj, the boys named in the allegation.

Especially when, under oath, you just said you never had drinking parties on weeknights....and that party was on a Thursday.

Maybe that was just his "opinion" and not a fact that could be shown to be a lie? 

[GMDino]

(10-06-2018, 12:35 AM)Dill Wrote: Maybe that was Collins' source as well. She was high on the presumption of innocence while explaining why she would vote for Kavanaugh.

She also thinks he won't be in favor of all the things he's already said he'd be in favor of....she had lots of reason in 45 minutes before caving to party over people.

[Bengalzona]

Conservative Definition: Presumption of Innocence = "Rape never really happens"

But be careful what you say, you might hurt Judge Snowflake's feelings and make him fake cry/rage again!

[GMDino]

Well, as expected, the GOP (legally) manipulated and maneuvered their way to get their man on the SC.

Let's see what they are angry about today!

[*michaelsean*]

(10-08-2018, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well, as expected, the GOP (legally) manipulated and maneuvered their way to get their man on the SC.

Let's see what they are angry about today!

There's still hope.  Congress man in Lieu of flowers is going to get to the bottom of it if they take back the House so vote, vote, vote.  

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 09:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: There's still hope.  Congress man in Lieu of flowers is going to get to the bottom of it if they take back the House so vote, vote, vote.  

Oh, I'm voting.  

And I've never seen more people who previously "didn't care" who are voting.

But, spoilers, I still won't vote straight democrat.  There are few a local republicans that I have supported in the past and probably will again. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-08-2018, 09:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, I'm voting.  

And I've never seen more people who previously "didn't care" who are voting.

But, spoilers, I still won't vote straight democrat.  There are few a local republicans that I have supported in the past and probably will again. 

I vote for local Dems because it's not party politics as much.  I especially couldn't stand our Republican sheriff that we had for ages after he was our prosecutor.  He's the one who went after Larry Flynt, and turned one of the biggest dirtballs into a hero.

[Benton]

Good.

Republicans have the White House, they've got Congress and now they've got the court. That's always been the sticking point (well, we couldn't fix things because, you know, the court).

With all the trickling down that's been done and all the winning going on, I'm expecting to be a millionaire by the end of the month!

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 10:39 AM)Benton Wrote: Good.

Republicans have the White House, they've got Congress and now they've got the court. That's always been the sticking point (well, we couldn't fix things because, you know, the court).

With all the trickling down that's been done and all the winning going on, I'm expecting to be a millionaire by the end of the month!

I get you think people will get angry and change things via the ballot box...but I still maintain that a) things are so set up now that turnover of elected officials is hard and will be minimal at best and b) they can institute more ways to make getting voted out harder than it already is.

Add to that that when the other side does come in to rebalance things and fix the mistakes people will then get mad at THEM for the eventual economic downturn and environmental cleanups.  Just like Obama got "blamed" for not fixing the economy "fast enough". 

[Benton]

(10-08-2018, 10:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: I get you think people will get angry and change things via the ballot box...but I still maintain that a) things are so set up now that turnover of elected officials is hard and will be minimal at best and b) they can institute more ways to make getting voted out harder than it already is.

Add to that that when the other side does come in to rebalance things and fix the mistakes people will then get mad at THEM for the eventual economic downturn and environmental cleanups.  Just like Obama got "blamed" for not fixing the economy "fast enough". 

In national elections, less than 60 percent of eligible voters vote. And that's split pretty evenly between two parties. Somewhere between a half and a third of those folks don't think their respective party represents them, they just have to vote for "someone."

So that's — roughly — 40-70 percent of the country that doesn't like Democrats or Republicans, some voting and some not. The more Schumers and McConnells we get, the more that number grows. I don't totally write off humanity as being all dumb and easily manipulated. Eventually, they're going to start speaking out instead of just being led around.