Brett Kavanaugh

[sggatecl]

i think a reasonable person would still put the burden of proof on the accuser.

I've been in two different positions where I was in charge of hiring and if I got wind that a potential hire was under investigating or suspicion of a crime, I'm going to hire another equally qualified person if I have one. I don't think that makes me unreasonable at all. Why roll the dice if it's completely unnecessary?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I've been in two different positions where I was in charge of hiring and if I got wind that a potential hire was under investigating or suspicion of a crime, I'm going to hire another equally qualified person if I have one. I don't think that makes me unreasonable at all. Why roll the dice if it's completely unnecessary?

Unfortunately, our two major political parties are no longer anything like regular real life.

They are like warring crime families.

They are the Corleones and the Barzinis.

There is no longer anything that neither will stoop to.

That’s why this is not just a job interview.

It’s a war between crime families.

 

[Spartanmack]

I've been in two different positions where I was in charge of hiring and if I got wind that a potential hire was under investigating or suspicion of a crime, I'm going to hire another equally qualified person if I have one. I don't think that makes me unreasonable at all. Why roll the dice if it's completely unnecessary?

The point is requiring an accused individual to prove their innocence from an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim, rather than the other way around is clearly unreasonable. Is it safe to say we now know where you stand on whether or not actual convicts deserve a second chance? In this instance, Kavanaugh is not under investigation or at least he wasn't at the time. And right now it's not a choice of Kavanaugh and someone else.

 

[tigermud]

I predict he will not be confirmed and trump will have to choose someone else to put forth

 

[Michchamp]

I predict he will not be confirmed and trump will have to choose someone else to put forth

hope you're right!

 

[Michchamp]

I've been in two different positions where I was in charge of hiring and if I got wind that a potential hire was under investigating or suspicion of a crime, I'm going to hire another equally qualified person if I have one. I don't think that makes me unreasonable at all. Why roll the dice if it's completely unnecessary?

What if, in addition to being under suspicion, the person was only recommended to you by his good old boy connections, was more or less unqualified to do the job, and was also sleazy as hell?

 

[sggatecl]

Is it safe to say we now know where you stand on whether or not actual convicts deserve a second chance?

I'm all for people who have paid their debt to society a second chance.

In this instance, Kavanaugh is not under investigation or at least he wasn't at the time. And right now it's not a choice of Kavanaugh and someone else.

But it easily could be since there were judges to choose from initially. Kethledge and Barrett are two names I remember hearing a lot. Wouldn't be hard to move on to the next one and save us all the time.

 

[tigermud]

hope you're right!

Trump should just go ahead and get his next man up.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...e-friend-detail-violentdrunken-behavior-judge

and just so you know I disagreed with Infowars on this one.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm all for people who have paid their debt to society a second chance.



But it easily could be since there were judges to choose from initially. Kethledge and Barrett are two names I remember hearing a lot. Wouldn't be hard to move on to the next one and save us all the time.

Why should Trump have to go back to the well? Nothing you've said changes the fact that the guy shouldn't be expected to prove his innocence against unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations.

 

[Michchamp]

The Federalist Society has a whole stable of carefully vetted conservative judges, palatable to pro-business interests.

When he was first nominated, before women started coming out to testify what a creep he was, I read a bunch of stories about how he was a reliable carpool driver for his kids and their friends, and other nonsense like that. They were trying to get in front of the character issues. (Didn't work!)

They MUST have known Kavanaugh came with a lot of baggage, and not just because he made his legal career as a toady of Ken Starr, and rubber-stamping torture policies for Bush Jr.

I'm sure they knew his tendency toward sleazy behavior with women, including his own law clerks. So they nominated him in spite of all this.

I wonder if either: 1) that's the whole point... they truly want a guy like this on the Supreme Court, or 2) he is just a stalking horse nominee to see what they could get away with politically.

 

[TheVictors]

I've already seen this movie ...some things never change.

 

[sggatecl]

Why should Trump have to go back to the well? Nothing you've said changes the fact that the guy shouldn't be expected to prove his innocence against unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations.

Pretty hard to do that without a real investigation. But then again, I assume that's been the idea all along. That's why we had the circus the other day with Ford facing a prosecutor speaking on behalf of the GOP and also why the FBI is rumored to be extremely limited in their investigation of Kavanaugh. All this crying about 'innocent until proven guilty' and Kavanaugh has been babied every step of the way.

He's going to get the seat. Democrats are fucking TERRIBLE at politics. It's amusing watching the GOP continue to run laps around them every step of the way. GOP are playing 4D chess while the Libs are playing checkers.

 

[tomdalton22]

Democrats are fucking TERRIBLE at politics. It's amusing watching the GOP continue to run laps around them every step of the way. GOP are playing 4D chess while the Libs are playing checkers.

Playing checkers??? More like eating checkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf-L_Cdq2g

 

[Spartanmack]

The Federalist Society has a whole stable of carefully vetted conservative judges, palatable to pro-business interests.

When he was first nominated, before women started coming out to testify what a creep he was, I read a bunch of stories about how he was a reliable carpool driver for his kids and their friends, and other nonsense like that. They were trying to get in front of the character issues. (Didn't work!)

They MUST have known Kavanaugh came with a lot of baggage, and not just because he made his legal career as a toady of Ken Starr, and rubber-stamping torture policies for Bush Jr.

I'm sure they knew his tendency toward sleazy behavior with women, including his own law clerks. So they nominated him in spite of all this.

I wonder if either: 1) that's the whole point... they truly want a guy like this on the Supreme Court, or 2) he is just a stalking horse nominee to see what they could get away with politically.

how many of his law clerks have come out and said he behaved inappropriately? and what evidence do you have that he's behaved inappropriately to any women? Remember, allegations are not evidence - I assume they teach that even in 3rd tier law schools.

 

[Spartanmack]

Pretty hard to do that without a real investigation. But then again, I assume that's been the idea all along. That's why we had the circus the other day with Ford facing a prosecutor speaking on behalf of the GOP and also why the FBI is rumored to be extremely limited in their investigation of Kavanaugh. All this crying about 'innocent until proven guilty' and Kavanaugh has been babied every step of the way.

He's going to get the seat. Democrats are fucking TERRIBLE at politics. It's amusing watching the GOP continue to run laps around them every step of the way. GOP are playing 4D chess while the Libs are playing checkers.

The idea all along? do you think they planned it this way? And what more of an investigation can you have in a he said/she said where virtually every person she named either doesn't remember any of it or backs up Kavanaugh? Didn't local MD or VA law enforcement already decline to investigate further due to lack of evidence/witnesses? And isn't it telling that this woman, all three women esp the gang rape accuser, hired politically connected law firms/lawyers and/or took their stories to Dem politicians and NOT to law enforcement?

I think you're giving the Rs way too much credit here. This is a shit show on both sides, the Rs just happen to be lucky in that the case against him is so weak, they'd have to be a complete clown brigade to f this up - and they still could.

 

[tinselwolverine]

how many of his law clerks have come out and said he behaved inappropriately? and what evidence do you have that he's behaved inappropriately to any women? Remember, allegations are not evidence - I assume they teach that even in 3rd tier law schools.

Of course an allegation is evidence - someone claiming something has happened is evidence that it might have happened - there wouldn't be an investigation into anything - not just this event - without an allegation having first been made. Allegations are the first piece of evidence in almost every investigation.

Allegations alone aren't proof, and certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (in any situation, not just this one) and while I don't absolutely believe Ford is lying through her teeth, I do believe she might be - the other two could be as well, I don't know - that's just how divided and vicious things have become, and how high both sides see the stakes as being.

 

[TheVictors]

He's not on trial for being a rapist, he's interviewing for a lifetime job that is unfit for a rapist. He should not be confirmed and the process should begin again with someone who isn't such a loathesome and violent person.


Perhaps Merrick Graham - he's the real version of everything Kavanaugh claims to be ...only not a violent drunk and rapist.


The other stuff, like how having an Ivy League degree is impressive and what not.

 

[Spartanmack]

Of course an allegation is evidence - someone claiming something has happened is evidence that it might have happened - there wouldn't be an investigation into anything - not just this event - without an allegation having first been made. Allegations are the first piece of evidence in almost every investigation.

Allegations alone aren't proof, and certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (in any situation, not just this one) and while I don't absolutely believe Ford is lying through her teeth, I do believe she might be - the other two could be as well, I don't know - that's just how divided and vicious things have become, and how high both sides see the stakes as being.

I don't believe that is correct. Allegations require evidence to be proved but they are not evidence.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=evidence&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&conversationid= according to this link, Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Here, the allegation would be the "belief or proposition" not actual evidence.

here's a couple more...

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/allegations-and-evidence-1622083.html

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't believe that is correct. Allegations require evidence to be proved but they are not evidence.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=evidence&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&conversationid= according to this link, Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Here, the allegation would be the "belief or proposition" not actual evidence.

here's a couple more...

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/allegations-and-evidence-1622083.html

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

Okay.

I see it kinda grey now; obviously it's only semantic, but here is a definition of evidence you provided in the second link:

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now, obviously it was neither a court nor in front of a jury; that said, Ford was a witness and she did present testimony. Her testimony was limited to her allegations, but nevertheless, they fit the definition of evidence provided.

EDIT: I don't really like that definition because it kind of implies that evidence and proof are the same, which they aren't. It would be better if it said the data presented was "intended to prove" instead.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay.

I see it kinda grey now; obviously it's only semantic, but here is a definition of evidence you provided in the second link:

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now, obviously it was neither a court nor in front of a jury; that said, Ford was a witness and she did present testimony. Her testimony was limited to her allegations, but nevertheless, they fit the definition of evidence provided.

EDIT: I don't really like that definition because it kind of implies that evidence and proof are the same, which they aren't. It would be better if it said the data presented was "intended to prove" instead.

I don't like it either and I think it's a stretch to call the allegation evidence. The point is, he's drawing conclusions about a person based on an unsupported and uncorroborated allegation - regardless of how loosely one defines "evidence".