Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Only if you wanted added to the list of people who make wrong comparison and use hyperbole to make a "point".

Who, on that list, said Kavanaugh was guilty?  Start there.

Why wouldn't we start with those that said he was not entitled to the presumption of innocence; as that is the question as hand, not guilt or innocence?

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So I will add you with Fred , Dino, Dill, and others that state presumption of innocence is not a basic human right and that it should not have been extended to Kavs in this case. 

Yeah, add us to the list along with the UN committee that drafted the Uniform Declaration of Human Rights.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What term would you use for someone who refuses to extend someone a basic human right?

Not bigot...but you be you.

(10-08-2018, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course not everybody extends the presumption of innocence outside of a court of law. But I do not miss the days of the lynch mobs. 

So you've spent three days using right wing talking points to accuse others of denying Kavanaugh a "basic human right", all the while you felt it was not being extended to others also because you need to make a political point that those opposing Kavanaugh (for any reason) were human rights violators?

That's sad.

Protests and parades are not "lynch mobs". They are free speech. At least for now.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why wouldn't we start with those that said he was not entitled to the presumption of innocence; as that is the question as hand, not guilt or innocence?

Basically because, as has been explained to you and as had been ignored by you, the presumption of innocence doesn't extend beyond the court of law AND by others explaining that to you it does not mean they also though Kavanaugh was guilty...just that your use of the tactic did not extend to everyone everywhere at all times.

Explaining how you are wrong about one thing does not mean the other.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why wouldn't we start with those that said he was not entitled to the presumption of innocence; as that is the question as hand, not guilt or innocence?

Because that is the main point you are missing.  Most people did not say he was guilty. Instead they just said that he should be subject to an investigation of the charges.

It is possible to not make any presumption of guilt or innocence before hearing all the facts, and that goes back to the point I was making earlier.  The right is trying to twist this "presumption of innocence" to a "presumption the accuser is lying" in all "he said/she said" cases.  Most people don't work that way in real life.  They don't call either side a liar until they know all the facts.  They neither presume one side is lying or presume the other is innocent.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 02:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not bigot...but you be you.


So you've spent three days using right wing talking points to accuse others of denying Kavanaugh a "basic human right", all the while you felt it was not being extended to others also but you need to make a political point that those opposing Kavanaugh (for any reason) were human rights violators?

That's sad.

Protests and parades are not "lynch mobs".  They are free speech.  At least for now.

Yeah that can all change once we start denying folks the presumption of innocence. 

As to the matter; I'm going to consider it closed. I have the lefties on here view of presumption of innocence and I my view. I might do some case law research to see if one must go to a court of law to be presumed innocent, but maybe not.

You guys go on denying those rights. I wounder how Justice Kavs and the rest of SCOTUS would view the matter. 

And a bigot is someone that treats someone else with intolerance. Of course you don't think that applies to folks that stated Kavs  didn't deserve the presumption of innocence. 

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah that can all change once we start denying folks the presumption of innocence. 

Oh! So "slippery slope" argument?

Maybe we should ban some weapons...just in case?

(10-08-2018, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the matter; I'm going to consider it closed. I have the lefties on here view of presumption of innocence and I my view. I might do some case law research to see if one must go to a court of law to be presumed innocent, but maybe not.

You guys go on denying those rights. I wounder how Justice Kavs and the rest of SCOTUS would view the matter. 

And a bigot is someone that treats someone else with intolerance. Of course you don't think that applies to folks that stated Kavs  didn't deserve the presumption of innocence. 

I'll repeat myself at the risk of being rude....

(10-08-2018, 02:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you've spent three days using right wing talking points to accuse others of denying Kavanaugh a "basic human right", all the while you felt it was not being extended to others also because you need to make a political point that those opposing Kavanaugh (for any reason) were human rights violators?

That's sad.

[*Nately120*]

I don't believe in karma, but I assume this is just payback for lefties being happy Scalia died. Now we have a sex-offender-ey version of him who screams and cries and will probably be on the SC for like 40 years. Good job, liberals.

[GMDino]

Dang Democrats "playing politics"!

Wait...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/08/supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell-2020/1563328002/

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not ruling out a third Supreme Court seat being filled by President Donald Trump – even if a vacancy does not open up until 2020. 


Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace expressed surprise that McConnell would allow a 2020 nomination to go through because the Republican leader refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, after former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. At the time, McConnell argued that the vacancy should not be filled in an election year. 

But when asked on Sunday, McConnell pointed to history and precedent.

"Maybe I have this wrong, but when you blocked Merrick Garland's nomination from President Obama you basically said we don't do this in a presidential election year and that we wait until the election," Wallace said. "But what you just said now was it's a question of whether or not the party in control of the Senate is different from the president." 

"What I told you is what the history of the Senate has been," McConnell replied. "You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year, on the Supreme Court, was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president." 

Wallace pressed McConnell to explicitly say whether or not he would go forward with a Trump nomination in 2020. 

"We'll see whether there's a vacancy in 2020," McConnell said. 

Republican President Rutherford Hayes' nominee William Woods was confirmed 39-8 by a Democrat-controlled Senate in 1880. Although 1880 was an election year, Woods was not nominated until December, after the election.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-08-2018, 03:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Dang Democrats "playing politics"!

Wait...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/08/supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell-2020/1563328002/

I'm convinced that if you are at the top of your party in either chamber, you are a slimeball.  It's the only way to get there.

[Benton]

(10-08-2018, 01:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: One of the discussions on the NYT Daily podcast was about how this can affect the court itself. The authority of the court really rests on this perception that it is a non-partisan arbiter. That is what really gives weight to their decisions. Now, people who know the SCOTUS well know it is political, but the perception is that it isn't. When the court is perceived as being political by the general public it loses some of that authority. We see this in many countries where their supreme courts aren't listened to at all.

This isn't a new thing, when the court upheld the ACA there was polling done that even those that agreed with the decision weren't too happy with the political way in which it was done. But the events surrounding this nomination and the confirmation process hurts that perception in a big way.

I think the perception was there well before that, mostly due to the GOP. 

After the Clinton impeachment, Republican lawmakers led the "the Democrats are rigging the system" charge about the executive and judicial branches (never mind the fact that the SCOTUS said the sexual harassment suit it stemmed from couldn't wait until he was out of office and that it was a Senate vote, not a SCOTUS decision on obstruction or perjury). They've fostered that implied idea with CLiton and outright with abortion (even though they've had executive and legislative authority since Roe V Wade and not made a realistic attempt to dent pro-choice laws).

And, most likely, Democrats will now do the same. "Vote for us, it's the only way to make sure the millionaires in the GOP don't crush you in the courts." When, in truth, the majority of the court is already pro-business, anti-individual already.

[jj22]

Not sure what Bfine is arguing. It was a job interview. If anyone of us is on a job interview and the hiring committee gets word of a sexual assault accusation and fbi investigation (even limited as the publicity stunt it was). They have every right to not hire us. And likely wouldn't. There'd be nothing we could do about it (but sue the accuser which neither him nor Trump ever does. which tells us all we need to know if acting guilty, and hiding behind politics; while the accuser gets grilled by a prosecutor for 4+ hours and handles it without breaking a sweat, didn't tell us enough)

Too bad the Supreme court (and Presidency) under Republicans aren't held to higher standards then us common folk (or Democrats).

Kav would have been disqualified to be hired at McDonalds. Tha'ts what Republicans and Trump supporters have turned the Presidency and Supreme court into.

Sexual Assault accusations aside, Kav was disqualified for lying under oath and bringing up right wing and Russian bot conspiracies to the hearing. We now know he is a partisan hack of the worst kind (conspiracy theorist branch of the GOP). His behavior was unprecedented by any party nominee, and is getting slammed in the profession and everywhere else outside of the Republican Congress and Fox News.

Trump supporters have ruined any standards the top offices of the land can demand. The effects will be felt for centuries.

They should be ashamed of what they are doing to the country they supposedly love. But of course they are tickled pink. They think they are trolling Dems, but they have damaged this great Nation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2018, 03:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: Not sure what Bfine is arguing. It was a job interview. If anyone of us is on a job interview and the hiring committee gets word of a sexual assault accusation and fbi investigation (even limited as the publicity stunt it was). They have every right to not hire us. And likely wouldn't. There'd be nothing we could do about it (but sue the accuser which neither him nor Trump ever does. which tells us all we need to know if acting guilty, and hiding behind politics; while the accuser gets grilled by a prosecutor for 4+ hours and handles it without breaking a sweat, didn't tell us enough)

It's rather easy to discern what bfine is arguing.  He's stating Kavanaugh had a basic human right to a presumption of innocence.  You can disagree with his assertion, but to claim you don't even understand his point betrays a lack of basic intelligence.

Quote:Too bad the Supreme court (and Presidency) under Republicans aren't held to higher standards then us common folk (or Democrats).

Sure, like Bill Clinton.  See how that works?

Quote:Sexual Assault accusations aside, Kav was disqualified for lying under oath and bringing up right wing and Russian bot conspiracies to the hearing. We now know he is a partisan hack of the worst kind (conspiracy theorist branch of the GOP). His behavior was unprecedented by any party nominee, and is getting slammed in the profession and everywhere else outside of the Republican Congress and Fox News.

Except he clearly wasn't disqualified as he got the job.  When you state something as fact that is demonstrably untrue you don't make a very compelling argument.

Quote:Trump supporters have ruined any standards the top offices of the land can demand. The effects will be felt for centuries.

For millennia!  Sorry, I got caught up in the hyperbole.

Quote:They should be ashamed of what they are doing to the country they supposedly love. But of course they are tickled pink. They think they are trolling Dems, but they have damaged this great Nation.

The process went exactly as it was determined in the Constitution.  If you have an issue with that, then seek an amendment.  You'd only be adding to your left leaning credentials as many on your side are already asking to limit the first amendment, abolish the second and abolish the Electoral College.  It's rather troubling how many aspects of our founding documents the left is now advocating we destroy.

[jj22]

Bill Clinton was impeached. Testified under oath, and has been investigated over 100 times. Come again when Trump goes through all (any of) that.

Everything else you said was political spin. Got to keep it to common sense with me.

And we both know neither one of us would have gotten a job as this was a job interview, not criminal court as Bfine (and you) are trying to spin it.

Kav's actions (outside of sexual assault) were a disgrace and embarrassment to the court, and many of people are saying it (only 38% of Americans approved of his confirmation). Nothing to be proud of. And I'd say the same if he was a Democrat.

[GMDino]

Two, quick, asides:

(10-08-2018, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except he clearly wasn't disqualified as he got the job.  When you state something as fact that is demonstrably untrue you don't make a very compelling argument.

Getting the job doesn't necessarily mean someone is qualified. Lots of people get jobs they are unqualified for for one reason or another (nepotism, necessity of filling position, lying on resume, etc).

(10-08-2018, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For millennia!  Sorry, I got caught up in the hyperbole.

Yay! The hyperbole police showed up! Hope they read all the posts and not just the "left leaning" ones.

[jj22]

People should want and expect more, but unfortunately as you see in this thread, many don't. And these people love their country? If stealing a seat wasn't disgraceful enough for the supposedly pro constitution party, then I'm not sure anything will be.

[jj22]

Let's just remember the FBI fired a man after Republicans and Trump demanded an investigation into him for texting a personal and private "negative" thing about Trump . All these Trump supporters attacked because it meant he was politically biased.

Then they nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Judge (mind you), who wasn't having a conversation with his girlfriend, he was attacking Dems and Hillary under oath in a public hearing! I mean really, you can't make this hypocrisy up.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather troubling how many aspects of our founding documents the left is now advocating we destroy.

It's even more troubling that the right has a problem with abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

What's so "troubling" about improving the Constitution?

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So I will add you with Fred , Dino, Dill, and others that state presumption of innocence is not a basic human right and that it should not have been extended to Kavs in this case. 

Misrepresenting what I said isn't new for you, so this isn't surprising.

(10-08-2018, 03:15 PM)Benton Wrote: I think the perception was there well before that, mostly due to the GOP. 

After the Clinton impeachment, Republican lawmakers led the "the Democrats are rigging the system" charge about the executive and judicial branches (never mind the fact that the SCOTUS said the sexual harassment suit it stemmed from couldn't wait until he was out of office and that it was a Senate vote, not a SCOTUS decision on obstruction or perjury). They've fostered that implied idea with CLiton and outright with abortion (even though they've had executive and legislative authority since Roe V Wade and not made a realistic attempt to dent pro-choice laws).

And, most likely, Democrats will now do the same. "Vote for us, it's the only way to make sure the millionaires in the GOP don't crush you in the courts." When, in truth, the majority of the court is already pro-business, anti-individual already.

Oh, I agree the perception was there before that. Bush v. Gore is another example. We could go back and look at many cases that provide this perception, pretty much all the way to the beginning. There has just always been a correction at some point. The court gets highly partisan, and then there is something like the court packing threat from FDR that makes everyone realize things have gone too far and there is a course correction. This current path is thanks in large part to the Federalist Society and their efforts to politicize the courts, which have been extremely successful.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The process went exactly as it was determined in the Constitution.  If you have an issue with that, then seek an amendment.  You'd only be adding to your left leaning credentials as many on your side are already asking to limit the first amendment, abolish the second and abolish the Electoral College.  It's rather troubling how many aspects of our founding documents the left is now advocating we destroy.

Ok, so, trying to amend what is in the Constitution is destroying it, yet what you are talking about are amendments themselves. Especially the EC, which in itself isn't being used as it was intended when the amendment was written.

I get that the California Democrats have done you wrong, but I'm having a hard time wading through this one.