Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[fredtoast]

(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? 

Because this is not a court of law.  I have said that about ten times already.

Besides, I never said he was guilty.  All I said was that Ford deserved to have her allegations investigated.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 11:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because this is not a court of law.  I have said that about ten times already.

Besides, I never said he was guilty.  All I said was that Ford deserved to have her allegations investigated.

Saying it a lot doesn't make it right. The presumption of law is a basic human right. You don't have to go to a court of law to obtain the presumption of innocence; you only have to go there to have it taken away. C'mon counselor

Luckily Ford had her allegations investigated. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Saying it a lot doesn't make it right. The presumption of law is a basic human right. You don't have to go to a court of law to obtain the presumption of innocence; you only have to go there to have it taken away. C'mon counselor

Luckily Ford had her allegations investigated. 

Then none of us, nor any of the Senators, could have violated his right to the presumption of innocence.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 11:21 AM)Benton Wrote: 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.

Unfortunately, with the current make-up of the court, expect to see restrictions on the ability for people to do anything about it.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The presumption of law is a basic human right. You don't have to go to a court of law to obtain the presumption of innocence; you only have to go there to have it taken away. C'mon counselor

No it is not a basic human right.

As I, and others, have already pointed out, if a persons baby sitter is accused of sexually assaulting another child most parents are not going to give any presumption of innocence.  They are going to use someone else until all the evidence is out.  If a person is fired because it was alleged that he stole from his prior employer then many people would not hire him to work for them without more facts.

What many people on the right are trying to do is pervert the concept of "presumption of innocence".  They are trying to say that in a "he said/she said" situation we must always assume that the accuser is lying.  In a court of law it is proper that THE STATE give the accused a presumption of innocence, but that does not apply on an individual level.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Luckily Ford had her allegations investigated. 

Yes, but the number of people who opposed the investigation was shocking.

[Benton]

(10-08-2018, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Unfortunately, with the current make-up of the court, expect to see restrictions on the ability for people to do anything about it.

Which was a big reason I didn't like the Kavanaugh pick. Just from what we do know about his time under Bush, it seems like he's pretty flexible on the First. 

But I'm still hopeful the majority of people will wake up sooner rather than later and realize neither party is looking out for them, or the majority of their interests.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then none of us, nor any of the Senators, could have violated his right to the presumption of innocence.

Of course you can deny anyone a right. Doesn't mean it is legal to do so.

Being as you felt the need to chime in: Do you view the presumption of innocence as a basic human right?

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 01:48 PM)Benton Wrote: But I'm still hopeful the majority of people will wake up sooner rather than later and realize neither party is looking out for them, or the majority of their interests.

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.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it is not a basic human right.

As I, and others, have already pointed out, if a persons baby sitter is accused of sexually assaulting another child most parents are not going to give any presumption of innocence.  They are going to use someone else until all the evidence is out.  If a person is fired because it was alleged that he stole from his prior employer then many people would not hire him to work for them without more facts.

What many people on the right are trying to do is pervert the concept of "presumption of innocence".  They are trying to say that in a "he said/she said" situation we must always assume that the accuser is lying.  In a court of law it is proper that THE STATE give the accused a presumption of innocence, but that does not apply on an individual level.

And as I have pointed out the UN declared it a human right. As I said bigots can deny folks their basic human rights, but it does not make it legal to do so.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 01:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, but the number of people who opposed the investigation was shocking.

I didn't see anyone that said it should not be investigated. Well, Feinstein did for a couple months. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you can deny anyone a right. Doesn't mean it is legal to do so.

You said in the statement I quoted that you must go to a court to have the right taken away, which is the same as denying someone that right.

(10-08-2018, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Being as you felt the need to chime in: Do you view the presumption of innocence as a basic human right?

I do; when someone is facing criminal charges. That's how it is written when looking at the UDHR. It is also how it is approached through our Constitution when looking at the matter of due process, which is what this is all connected to. Due process/presumption of innocence is a right that is explicitly tied to criminal proceedings.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You said in the statement I quoted that you must go to a court to have the right taken away, which is the same as denying someone that right.


I do; when someone is facing criminal charges. That's how it is written when looking at the UDHR. It is also how it is approached through our Constitution when looking at the matter of due process, which is what this is all connected to. Due process/presumption of innocence is a right that is explicitly tied to criminal proceedings.

I assumed you understood I meant legally taken away when I referenced a court of law. Anyone can deny anyone a basic human right if they choose to do so. Just like many bigots did with Kavs. Actually there's a difference as far as I am concerned between violating (with is what you said) and taking away(which is what I said). Of course that could just be semantics.

So it's your opinion that presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law? I hope we don't have too many citizens with that same vigilante mentality. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 02:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So it's your opinion that presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law? I hope we don't have too many citizens with that same vigilante mentality. 

I's not really my opinion, it's stated explicitly in the UDHR.

Quote:1. 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 defense.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

You see, the right is applicable to criminal/penal law and has nothing to do with anything else.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 02:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I assumed you understood I meant legally taken away when I referenced a court of law. Anyone can deny anyone a basic human right if they choose to do so. Just like many bigots did with Kavs. Actually there's a difference as far as I am concerned between violating (with is what you said) and taking away(which is what I said). Of course that could just be semantics.

"bigots" lol

(10-08-2018, 02:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So it's your opinion that presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law? I hope we don't have too many citizens with that same vigilante mentality. 

Oh, we have plenty.

Some people don't think anyone on "the other side" is innocent. Like calling Planned Parenthood employees "murders" and yelling at women going in for exams.

Or people who think because women want their birth control for free they must be whores and sluts.

Or people who accuse women who come out about being attacked after "too long" as being "political shills" and part of a left wing conspiracy and plot...because THEIR guy must be innocent so the OTHER person must be guilty.

Lots of folks who don't hold the same 100% moral standard as you do about "presumption of innocence" outside the court of law.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 02:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So it's your opinion that presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law? I hope we don't have too many citizens with that same vigilante mentality. 

Actually on an individual basis it applies to almost everyone.

I realize you have claimed that you would not stop using a babysitter even if your child claimed to have been sexually assaulted by her, but 99% of the population would.  And the fact that you brand any parent who disagrees with you a "vigilante" proves that you don't really give people a presumption of innocence either.  You only apply it when it fits your needs.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 02:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I's not really my opinion, it's stated explicitly in the UDHR.


You see, the right is applicable to criminal/penal law and has nothing to do with anything else.

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. 

[GMDino]

(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. 

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.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2018, 02:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: "bigots"  lol




Oh, we have plenty.

Some people don't think anyone on "the other side" is innocent.  Like calling Planned Parenthood employees "murders" and yelling at women going in for exams.

Or people who think because women want their birth control for free they must be whores and sluts.

Or people who accuse women who come out about being attacked after "too long" as being "political shills" and part of a left wing conspiracy and plot...because THEIR guy must be innocent so the OTHER person must be guilty.

Lots of folks who don't hold the same 100% moral standard as you do about "presumption of innocence" outside the court of law.

What term would you use for someone who refuses to extend someone a basic human right?

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. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-05-2018, 11:43 AM)jj22 Wrote: Fake news. None of Fords corroborating witnesses were interviewed by the FBI. Trump wouldn't approve it. As the WH admits, and Trump supporters clearly ignore.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/fbi-report-interview-kavanaugh-classmates.html

You got to keep it to common sense with me Bfine. I'm not that easily conned and don't play the fool for politics like some people are willing to do.

Heeeey, I can make a list of 20 people that say Mike Brown is the worst owner in the League, but it doesn't prove anything about how he fleeced the Taxpayers for the stadium.

So unless these people were actually present for the crime that was committed, then they are useless witnesses.