Legal/scotus thread

sturg33 said:
Or he remembers not being at such a party.

She wasn't even able to put a date behind it. Her letter says "early 1980's

Hey Runnin - you did something bad in early 80's. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

To be fair I don't think I could put a date to certain traumatic events that happened to me even though the memories are pretty clear in my mind. Although I think I could add some details to which an investigator may be able to pin it down.
 
weso1 said:
To be fair I don't think I could put a date to certain traumatic events that happened to me even though the memories are pretty clear in my mind. Although I think I could add some details to which an investigator may be able to pin it down.
Click to expand...

always a good idea to keep a diary...or the modern day equivalent
 
weso1 said:
To be fair I don't think I could put a date to certain traumatic events that happened to me even though the memories are pretty clear in my mind. Although I think I could add some details to which an investigator may be able to pin it down.
Click to expand...

Like I said... if all we get is what we've gotten, how can we not proceed?
 
This is just a terrible situation. How do you prove or disprove something thats he said/she saidfrom 35 years ago? I don't really care if he gets confirmed and I don't think Feinstein would have leaked it while it was anonymous. I don't agree with her on much but she has never struck me as that type. She was also not the first person in Congress to get this accusation.

Regardless, you will probably have to pick between maybe taking down an innocent man or possibly ignoring a victim, without being able to prove it either way.
 
sturg33 said:
Hey Runnin - you did something bad in early 80's. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

<sniff sniff> <swallows hard>
You got me.

I admit I did some bad/stupid stuff in the early 80's and respectfully withdraw myself from further consideration of public office.
 
if this were a judicial proceeding the presumption of innocence would carry the day for Kavanaugh

but a confirmation hearing is a different matter...it is worth keeping in mind there are lots of highly qualified people out there
 
nsacpi said:
if this were a judicial proceeding the presumption of innocence would carry the day for Kavanaugh

but a confirmation hearing is a different matter...it is worth keeping in mind there are lots of highly qualified people out there
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but I'm not willing to set that precedent of an uncorroborated accusation taking someone down like that.

I'm old enough to remember when the dems decided to set the precedent of the nuclear option... how's that working out?
 
I could imagine the Dems acting worse with the Pubs did this when confirming Garland.

Trust me, they would act way worse. By acting like babies now.....I shudder at the thought because they are so naive and immature.
 
Hillary lost.....tantrum
Trump calling them names.....tantrum
Russian so called interference....tantrum
Putin.....tantrum
Garland not confirmed......tantrum
Sessions elected......tantrum
Kavanaugh selected.......big tantrum


All this tells me is that Dems are immature and can't handle things if they don't go their way in any matter. All they know is like a little baby that you steal their candy, they throw tantrums. I can't trust really trust people who first thought is throwing tantrums and not acting like an adult. Yes we have a big baby in office who is unfit, that is not my fault but the Dems not having someone more qualified and likeable.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't know about you but I'm not willing to set that precedent of an uncorroborated accusation taking someone down like that.

I'm old enough to remember when the dems decided to set the precedent of the nuclear option... how's that working out?
Click to expand...

with a criminal trial the system should be set up to avoid convicting an innocent person

with a supreme court seat I'm more willing to tolerate that kind of error
 
nsacpi said:
with a criminal trial the system should be set up to avoid convicting an innocent person

with a supreme court seat I'm more willing to tolerate that kind of error
Click to expand...

I think Sturg's point is that we would then see a never ending line of unsubstantiated accusations against every nominee.

You can't just toss him out on her word alone, there has to be some kind of believable corroboration. Well, we are talking about the likes of Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, so I shouldn't say "can't", but wow what a terrible precedent that would be.
 
Jaw said:
I think Sturg's point is that we would then see a never ending line of unsubstantiated accusations against every nominee.

You can't just toss him out on her word alone, there has to be some kind of believable corroboration. Well, we are talking about the likes of Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, so I shouldn't say "can't", but wow what a terrible precedent that would be.
Click to expand...

well...we have had a lot of supreme court nominations over the years...and I believe those kinds of accusations have only come up twice (Thomas and Kavanaugh)...i think the senators have to listen carefully to the two witnesses on Monday and make the best judgment they can make...that's all anyone can ask for...it might also be a good idea to call Mark Judge and anyone else who might help them evaluate the credibility of the two witnesses
 
nsacpi said:
well...we have had a lot of supreme court nominations over the years...and I believe those kinds of accusations have only come up twice (Thomas and Kavanaugh)...i think the senators have to listen carefully to the two witnesses on Monday and make the best judgment they can make...that's all anyone can ask for...it might also be a good idea to call Mark Judge and anyone else who might help them evaluate the credibility of the two witnesses
Click to expand...

If your position is an accusation alone is enough to stop a supreme Court nominee, then I assure you others will follow suit.
 
sturg33 said:
If your position is an accusation alone is enough to stop a supreme Court nominee, then I assure you others will follow suit.
Click to expand...

that's not my position...i think you have to look at the credibility of the accuser...see if there is any corroborating or supporting evidence...weigh it against the credibility of the denials

i think the hearings on Monday might yield some details that can be useful to the senators trying to approach it with an open mind...one line of questioning that I would pursue would be to ask Kavanaugh if he socialized with students from Ford's school...from Ford I would try to get information on how she got to the house where the attack supposedly took place...who drove her (she was 15 at the time and presumably could not drive herself)...who drove her away...i know a lot of time has passed and some of those details may be lost to memory, but the way the two answer those kinds of questions might be illuminating
 
I am at the point where I just assume any bible thumper is a pedophile, rapist, or is some other kind of monster. Specifically the ones who say "if you dont believe in Jesus then how do I know you wont go around kiling amd raping people". Anyone that needs religion to tell them that is a dangerous person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top