A different question on Roy Moore

[deltex1]

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

Go back and read the first time I asked my question again. I didn't change my question, you just didn't read it right the first time.

There is no recall process in the Constitution for Senators. It is impossible to do.

For someone who so loudly proclaims their defense of the Constitution, you don't seem to know much about it.

There is a way, it just takes a long time. Would be much faster if there was no 17th Amendment.

Clearly, the Senate has no leg to stand on to keep him from being seated, so its a moot point. However, without a doubt, if they should even try to do so, then accusers should come forward and bring unsubstantiated accusations against them from four decades ago and then see if they will be willing to unseat someone who is already seated.

I can hear what they'll say because it is what Conyor and Pelosi have been saying. That we have due process and should adhere to that.

Hypocrisy, the left invented the concept.

Seat him.....between Pokahontas and Feinstein....that will keep him limp...and out of trouble.

 

[Moonglow]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

Burn him anyway!

 

[WaitingFor2020]

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

Go back and read the first time I asked my question again. I didn't change my question, you just didn't read it right the first time.

There is no recall process in the Constitution for Senators. It is impossible to do.

For someone who so loudly proclaims their defense of the Constitution, you don't seem to know much about it.

There is a way, it just takes a long time. Would be much faster if there was no 17th Amendment.

Clearly, the Senate has no leg to stand on to keep him from being seated, so its a moot point. However, without a doubt, if they should even try to do so, then accusers should come forward and bring unsubstantiated accusations against them from four decades ago and then see if they will be willing to unseat someone who is already seated.

I can hear what they'll say because it is what Conyor and Pelosi have been saying. That we have due process and should adhere to that.

Hypocrisy, the left invented the concept.

Seat him.....between Pokahontas and Feinstein....that will keep him limp...and out of trouble.

So you believe the nine women who have accused him? Good for you. Maybe you're not so bad after all.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I hope he does get elected. With the frenzy of accusations flying inside the Beltway right now he will be an automatic pariah. What he deserves. No one will want to be seen with him. And he's just what the stupid people of Alabama deserve. Cut the Deep South out with a sharp knife and let it float into the Atlantic and beyond.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

This is a good example of the histrionics that I was referring to. You are being intentionally vague and emotional.

If Moore loses the election and all of the allegations are found to be baseless?

Then thems the breaks. It wouldn't be the first or last time that dirty politics won an election.

We don't judge the law in the court of public opinion.

But that is how we judge elections.

Please. If that is all the awareness you can show of the expanding hatred of the left, then do Me a favor and just put Me on ignore so you don't stroke out or something. I find your distasteful, "Oh, let's destroy someone in the name of party or ideology" to be rather amoral if not downright unprincipled. The excuse, "Its been done in the past" is akin to saying, "Everyone else is doing it too!".

Party above principle, though, right? Just following orders.

I'm sorry that my posts seem to upset you so much. But no, I'm not going to put you on ignore. I find you incredibly entertaining.

I don't give a flying fuck what you find "distasteful", "amoral", or "unprincipled". We're not talking about unicorns and rainbows, we're talking about reality. Your emotions don't matter - we're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is.

This is how politic works. You act like you just discovered that people play dirty tricks in elections this afternoon.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

I think Moore will win and the Senate will huff and puff around and do nothing, just as they have done with Trump, who has violated the emoluments clause and even admitted (to TAS and the Russians in the Oval Office) that he fired Comey to take the pressure off of him. And Congress does nothing.

That is certainly the most likely scenario.

 

[Darkwind]

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

This is a good example of the histrionics that I was referring to. You are being intentionally vague and emotional.

If Moore loses the election and all of the allegations are found to be baseless?

Then thems the breaks. It wouldn't be the first or last time that dirty politics won an election.

We don't judge the law in the court of public opinion.

But that is how we judge elections.

Please. If that is all the awareness you can show of the expanding hatred of the left, then do Me a favor and just put Me on ignore so you don't stroke out or something. I find your distasteful, "Oh, let's destroy someone in the name of party or ideology" to be rather amoral if not downright unprincipled. The excuse, "Its been done in the past" is akin to saying, "Everyone else is doing it too!".

Party above principle, though, right? Just following orders.

I'm sorry that my posts seem to upset you so much. But no, I'm not going to put you on ignore. I find you incredibly entertaining.

I don't give a flying fuck what you find "distasteful", "amoral", or "unprincipled". We're not talking about unicorns and rainbows, we're talking about reality. Your emotions don't matter - we're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is.

This is how politic works. You act like you just discovered that people play dirty tricks in elections this afternoon.

Upset? LOL. I was worried about you. You progressives start having throbbing veins and foaming mouths when you run across people who don't agree with your worldview. I'm sure you can find examples here and on the interwebs. You don't give a flying fuck about what others find amoral, unprincipled, and distasteful yet here you are trying to make it perfectly okay to support a Salem style witch trial in modern America. Unicorns and rainbows is amusing and sound like you're trying very hard to make someone you don't care about sound crazy.

But hey, if you're sure you are not going to suffer some medical issue or at the very least, have some kind of disassocative episode, by all means, keep reading.

However, since you've run out of anything even remotely resembling a new point of discussion, I'll let you get about your business. I have other things to do anyway.

Have a good night.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

This is a good example of the histrionics that I was referring to. You are being intentionally vague and emotional.

If Moore loses the election and all of the allegations are found to be baseless?

Then thems the breaks. It wouldn't be the first or last time that dirty politics won an election.

We don't judge the law in the court of public opinion.

But that is how we judge elections.

Please. If that is all the awareness you can show of the expanding hatred of the left, then do Me a favor and just put Me on ignore so you don't stroke out or something. I find your distasteful, "Oh, let's destroy someone in the name of party or ideology" to be rather amoral if not downright unprincipled. The excuse, "Its been done in the past" is akin to saying, "Everyone else is doing it too!".

Party above principle, though, right? Just following orders.

I'm sorry that my posts seem to upset you so much. But no, I'm not going to put you on ignore. I find you incredibly entertaining.

I don't give a flying fuck what you find "distasteful", "amoral", or "unprincipled". We're not talking about unicorns and rainbows, we're talking about reality. Your emotions don't matter - we're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is.

This is how politic works. You act like you just discovered that people play dirty tricks in elections this afternoon.

Upset? LOL. I was worried about you. You progressives start having throbbing veins and foaming mouths when you run across people who don't agree with your worldview. I'm sure you can find examples here and on the interwebs. You don't give a flying fuck about what others find amoral, unprincipled, and distasteful yet here you are trying to make it perfectly okay to support a Salem style witch trial in modern America. Unicorns and rainbows is amusing and sound like you're trying very hard to make someone you don't care about sound crazy.

But hey, if you're sure you are not going to suffer some medical issue or at the very least, have some kind of disassocative episode, by all means, keep reading.

However, since you've run out of anything even remotely resembling a new point of discussion, I'll let you get about your business. I have other things to do anyway.

Have a good night.

You seem to be a little confused as to the topic of this thread. Perhaps you wandered in by mistake.

The title of this thread isn't "Darkwind's faux outrage and histrionics about Roy Moore."

That's not what we're "discussing."

 

[Darkwind]

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

This is a good example of the histrionics that I was referring to. You are being intentionally vague and emotional.

If Moore loses the election and all of the allegations are found to be baseless?

Then thems the breaks. It wouldn't be the first or last time that dirty politics won an election.

We don't judge the law in the court of public opinion.

But that is how we judge elections.

Please. If that is all the awareness you can show of the expanding hatred of the left, then do Me a favor and just put Me on ignore so you don't stroke out or something. I find your distasteful, "Oh, let's destroy someone in the name of party or ideology" to be rather amoral if not downright unprincipled. The excuse, "Its been done in the past" is akin to saying, "Everyone else is doing it too!".

Party above principle, though, right? Just following orders.

I'm sorry that my posts seem to upset you so much. But no, I'm not going to put you on ignore. I find you incredibly entertaining.

I don't give a flying fuck what you find "distasteful", "amoral", or "unprincipled". We're not talking about unicorns and rainbows, we're talking about reality. Your emotions don't matter - we're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is.

This is how politic works. You act like you just discovered that people play dirty tricks in elections this afternoon.

Upset? LOL. I was worried about you. You progressives start having throbbing veins and foaming mouths when you run across people who don't agree with your worldview. I'm sure you can find examples here and on the interwebs. You don't give a flying fuck about what others find amoral, unprincipled, and distasteful yet here you are trying to make it perfectly okay to support a Salem style witch trial in modern America. Unicorns and rainbows is amusing and sound like you're trying very hard to make someone you don't care about sound crazy.

But hey, if you're sure you are not going to suffer some medical issue or at the very least, have some kind of disassocative episode, by all means, keep reading.

However, since you've run out of anything even remotely resembling a new point of discussion, I'll let you get about your business. I have other things to do anyway.

Have a good night.

You seem to be a little confused as to the topic of this thread. Perhaps you wandered in by mistake.

The title of this thread isn't "Darkwind's faux outrage and histrionics about Roy Moore."

That's not what we're "discussing."

It IS what you have been discussing. Perhaps you should get back on topic.

 

[whitehall]

It should be noted that Clinton defenders cited the Statute of Limitations when the Bubba was accused of rape by a credible alleged victim and then they laughed the whole thing off. If Moore is judged as unfit by the U.S. Senate based on forty year old allegations they have to use the same standards of conduct to judge the lives of every sitting senator going back at least forty years.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Those instances are fundamentally different than the current one. The cited article notes that Powell v. McCormack shows that it is unlikely that the senate has the power to refuse to seat Moore because it does not fall under the powers outlined in the constitution. Your link mentions 9 cases:

1 is related to election problems and has no relation to Moore's situation

2 is a situation not even relevant in the senate at this time and unconstitutional now.

3 is blatantly unconstitutional now. This was mostly due to religious issues - something that the senate is
CLEARLY unable to do now and polygamy. Under current case law, I believe that anti-bigamy and polygamy laws (not related to marriage but simply cohabitation) would be unconstitutional.

4 was seated after all so does not support your point and, again, was related to religion and polygamy. Interestingly enough, he was seated even though it was supposed that he swore an oath AGAINST the US. Considering the circumstances, this goes against your supposition.

5 was not seated for a conviction of the espionage act. This is the closest example we have but is still far from your mark. Moore has not been convicted of anything. This is the closest example you have and still not really relevant for the mentioned reason and, even more importantly, examples 1 - 5 occurred before the SCOTUS ruled on this practice. That is key.

The first 5 are irrelevant in that they precede the SCOTUS ruling on the senate not seating members. Whatever the practice before the 6th example the SCOTUS ruled that the senate does not have the power to refuse to seat members due to requirements other than
6 seated and when the SCUTUS ruled not seating a member for reasons that are not age, citizenship and residence requirements that the constitution specifically calls out.

6 This is the one that the court ruled on.
Powell v. McCormack - Wikipedia

7 election issues. Again, not relevant to this case and such power is directly outlined in the constitution as well.

8 ejected - irrelevant to your point

9 seated. Again, countering your point.

Essentially, your link establishes the exact opposite - there is no real precedent to deny Moore the seat and that the SCOTUS has ruled that such power does not exist for situations like this one.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.

Flatly incorrect. A core tenant of the judicial system here is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tying to play word games around the verdict of guilty or not guilty does not change that reality unless you can show some functional difference between not guilty and innocent.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That is prior to trial. Nonetheless, no jury will find a defendant innocent.

 

[DarkFury]

If this site is any indication of what should happen 81 percent say seat Moore. And given how badly liberals have treated the people of Alabama on this site that may well be a very strong indicator in what happens election day.

You can't go around and bad mouth a group of people and expect their support.

 

[Crixus]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

They should not worry about it and just do their jobs.

 

[S.J.]

I have no doubt that if Moore is elected there will be yet another "investigation". Between the Democratic Communist Party and the enabling status quo Republicans, they have a majority, and investigations are their preferred method of dealing with outsiders. They'll do whatever they deem necessary to keep the swamp from being drained.

Well, cheer up. The Senate traditionally doesn't do anything even after they've investigated someone.

Cheer up? I'm not sad. Are you?

 

[Pop23]

Moore is such an ass!

Forget the sexual harassment stuff . This guy was removed from the Bama Supreme Court TWICE ! 2x for defying court orders !!!

And the “common knowledge” information about him was somehow missed by ever left wing political group and media outlet in the world.

Can’t believe how naive you must be to believe this could ever happen FOR FORTY YEARS.

 

[Fiero425]

Seat him and let the old perv be the face of the Republican Party! Trump's not doing them much good, maybe the old judge will bring respectability back to this lowlife organization!

 

[FA_Q2]

Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Those instances are fundamentally different than the current one. The cited article notes that Powell v. McCormack shows that it is unlikely that the senate has the power to refuse to seat Moore because it does not fall under the powers outlined in the constitution. Your link mentions 9 cases:

1 is related to election problems and has no relation to Moore's situation

2 is a situation not even relevant in the senate at this time and unconstitutional now.

3 is blatantly unconstitutional now. This was mostly due to religious issues - something that the senate is
CLEARLY unable to do now and polygamy. Under current case law, I believe that anti-bigamy and polygamy laws (not related to marriage but simply cohabitation) would be unconstitutional.

4 was seated after all so does not support your point and, again, was related to religion and polygamy. Interestingly enough, he was seated even though it was supposed that he swore an oath AGAINST the US. Considering the circumstances, this goes against your supposition.

5 was not seated for a conviction of the espionage act. This is the closest example we have but is still far from your mark. Moore has not been convicted of anything. This is the closest example you have and still not really relevant for the mentioned reason and, even more importantly, examples 1 - 5 occurred before the SCOTUS ruled on this practice. That is key.

The first 5 are irrelevant in that they precede the SCOTUS ruling on the senate not seating members. Whatever the practice before the 6th example the SCOTUS ruled that the senate does not have the power to refuse to seat members due to requirements other than
6 seated and when the SCUTUS ruled not seating a member for reasons that are not age, citizenship and residence requirements that the constitution specifically calls out.

6 This is the one that the court ruled on.
Powell v. McCormack - Wikipedia

7 election issues. Again, not relevant to this case and such power is directly outlined in the constitution as well.

8 ejected - irrelevant to your point

9 seated. Again, countering your point.

Essentially, your link establishes the exact opposite - there is no real precedent to deny Moore the seat and that the SCOTUS has ruled that such power does not exist for situations like this one.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.

Flatly incorrect. A core tenant of the judicial system here is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tying to play word games around the verdict of guilty or not guilty does not change that reality unless you can show some functional difference between not guilty and innocent.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That is prior to trial. Nonetheless, no jury will find a defendant innocent.

No, it is not prior to trial. You are presumed innocent up until the moment that a verdict is reached.

 

[Fiero425]

Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Those instances are fundamentally different than the current one. The cited article notes that Powell v. McCormack shows that it is unlikely that the senate has the power to refuse to seat Moore because it does not fall under the powers outlined in the constitution. Your link mentions 9 cases:

1 is related to election problems and has no relation to Moore's situation

2 is a situation not even relevant in the senate at this time and unconstitutional now.

3 is blatantly unconstitutional now. This was mostly due to religious issues - something that the senate is
CLEARLY unable to do now and polygamy. Under current case law, I believe that anti-bigamy and polygamy laws (not related to marriage but simply cohabitation) would be unconstitutional.

4 was seated after all so does not support your point and, again, was related to religion and polygamy. Interestingly enough, he was seated even though it was supposed that he swore an oath AGAINST the US. Considering the circumstances, this goes against your supposition.

5 was not seated for a conviction of the espionage act. This is the closest example we have but is still far from your mark. Moore has not been convicted of anything. This is the closest example you have and still not really relevant for the mentioned reason and, even more importantly, examples 1 - 5 occurred before the SCOTUS ruled on this practice. That is key.

The first 5 are irrelevant in that they precede the SCOTUS ruling on the senate not seating members. Whatever the practice before the 6th example the SCOTUS ruled that the senate does not have the power to refuse to seat members due to requirements other than
6 seated and when the SCUTUS ruled not seating a member for reasons that are not age, citizenship and residence requirements that the constitution specifically calls out.

6 This is the one that the court ruled on.
Powell v. McCormack - Wikipedia

7 election issues. Again, not relevant to this case and such power is directly outlined in the constitution as well.

8 ejected - irrelevant to your point

9 seated. Again, countering your point.

Essentially, your link establishes the exact opposite - there is no real precedent to deny Moore the seat and that the SCOTUS has ruled that such power does not exist for situations like this one.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.

Flatly incorrect. A core tenant of the judicial system here is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tying to play word games around the verdict of guilty or not guilty does not change that reality unless you can show some functional difference between not guilty and innocent.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That is prior to trial. Nonetheless, no jury will find a defendant innocent.

No, it is not prior to trial. You are presumed innocent up until the moment that a verdict is reached.

Well that's a joke! How many innocent people go to the conclusion of trials! If called "not guilty," that's still a far cry from innocent!

 

[Slade3200]

Moore is slime and does not deserve the seat but if he is elected then he is elected and congress needs to respect that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seat him and let the old perv be the face of the Republican Party! Trump's not doing them much good, maybe the old judge will bring respectability back to this lowlife organization!

Like Hilary did with hers????