Kavanaugh/Ford Opinon threads from Saturday, Sept 23, 2018

[hadit]

He could be one of them? That's your base of proof, IM2? He could be the next Pope! He could be an alien sent from the planet Krypton! You've got women with an obvious liberal bias accusing a man of sexual assaults at the 11th hour of a confirmation hearing that liberals have been trying to derail with any means possible since it began! How about this "could"! You liberals "could" be smearing an innocent man because you don't want a conservative seated on the Supreme Court! You "could" be using women who feel that lying to keep him off the court is a moral thing to do!

Sorry but conservatives have been confirmed before in recent years when the senate was majority democrat.

Not when the balance of power has been at stake

To be fair, we haven't confirmed a democratic appointee under the same circumstances either
This is political payback for Garland and a fight for the idealogical makeup of the court

Well republicans should have let Garland have a hearing. Don't start whining about politics after you pull a poliical stunt yourself. The reason Garland was refused was so there would be a majority conservative court. You reap what you sow. Republicans are getting what they deserve.

Two wrongs make a right, and it's okay to destroy one man because another was treated unfairly? Not a good world to live in.

Don't come to me with that weak stuff after you support the first wrong that was committed. There is one thing that can clear Kavanaughs name and that's an investigation. If I was Kavanaugh and innocent, I'd be saying bring it on.

1. I've always maintained Garland should have been voted on, so feel free to stuff that one where the sun doesn't shine.
2. No one tried to personally destroy Garland. They just didn't vote on him. Still wrong, still not the same thing.
3. Unless you say different, you sure seem to be saying that it's okay to destroy one man because you think a different man wasn't treated fairly.

 

[hadit]

You have no proof. You don't really understand "due process". When you accuse someone of something, you have to prove it. That's our system.

I think that is why Ford is asking for a FBI investigation. Now what proof do you have that Kavanaugh did not do this?

The accused does not have to prove their innocence. You really need to learn some basics of our judicial system. Where are you from, Bezerkistan?

Hate to tell you but if you are accused of a crime, you do have to prove you didn't do it.

You don't if the accusation leaves reasonable doubt. That's why in a lot of cases the defendant doesn't even testify. Also why the defendant goes last. He has to hear the case against him so he can defend against it.

Yes after the defense presents its evidence that attempts to show the defendant didn't do it. I do believe the prosecution can call the defendant. The jury deliberates to figure out if there is reasonable doubt.

And yes, if you have clear evidence that you were not even at the scene of the crime, you produce it and get the whole case tossed ASAP. But if, for example, the prosecution says you committed a crime during a summer long time frame at a house somewhere in a county while at a party with some people who all day three crime didn't happen, all you can do is let the prosecution's case fall apart under its own weight.

 

[hadit]

The accused does not have to prove their innocence. You really need to learn some basics of our judicial system. Where are you from, Bezerkistan?

Hate to tell you but if you are accused of a crime, you do have to prove you didn't do it.

No, you don't. The prosecuting attorney presents EVIDENCE to a jury and they decide from the EVIDENCE if you are guilty. If the jury thinks there isn't enough evidence that you committed a crime, then you are free. Haven't you ever heard of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? You really are an idiot.

I guess there is such thing as a defense attorney. And the defense never has to prepare a case.

Of course they prepare a case, but all they need to do is raise reasonable doubt, not outright prove innocence. That's why character witnesses are so important. If hundreds of people are willing to swear that they know you well and do not believe that you would ever do what you're accused of doing, it makes the prosecution's task that much harder. And in this case, they make Ford's story less believable.

Only to you. Because you wan it to. Hundreds of people were not at those parties and only the people who witnessed the events count.

In a he said/she said situation like this one, character is ALL we have to go on. ALL we can do is judge the veracity of the opposing sides, and hundreds of people willing to vouch for the defendant's character says a lot.

 

[hadit]

Five times Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied to Congress while under oath

Those are partisan opinions. No proof.

Seriously. Courts and the Congress hate bring lied to. If it was such a slam dunk that he lied under oath, we wouldn't have even heard of Ford because the democrats would be out 24/7 screaming about it. The fact that they're not either means that they don't think he did, they're idiots that can't figure it out while partisan internet keyboard jockeys can, or both.

The democrats are. Since the majority of the committee are republicans and they want so bad to have a conservative super majority on the court they are not going to complain about the lies. None of the republicans followed up on these questions and as Kavanaugh was lying the republicans on the committee were trying real hard to stop the questioning.

Democrats love a good victim story. Why haven't we seen them non stop on TV insisting he lied under oath and that they were railroaded? Lying under oath is serious business, and a much more valuable tool than a poorly remembered decades old allegation of sexual assault by a minor.

Republicans have been playing the victim since at least Reagan. This case is another example of it.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You know as well as I do that if the democrats really thought they could price Have such lied under oath, that's all we would have heard about.

 

[BS Filter]

You have no proof. You don't really understand "due process". When you accuse someone of something, you have to prove it. That's our system.

I think that is why Ford is asking for a FBI investigation. Now what proof do you have that Kavanaugh did not do this?

The accused does not have to prove their innocence. You really need to learn some basics of our judicial system. Where are you from, Bezerkistan?

Hate to tell you but if you are accused of a crime, you do have to prove you didn't do it.

You don't if the accusation leaves reasonable doubt. That's why in a lot of cases the defendant doesn't even testify. Also why the defendant goes last. He has to hear the case against him so he can defend against it.

Yes after the defense presents its evidence that attempts to show the defendant didn't do it. I do believe the prosecution can call the defendant. The jury deliberates to figure out if there is reasonable doubt.

Yes, reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

 

[BS Filter]

The accused does not have to prove their innocence. You really need to learn some basics of our judicial system. Where are you from, Bezerkistan?

Hate to tell you but if you are accused of a crime, you do have to prove you didn't do it.

No, you don't. The prosecuting attorney presents EVIDENCE to a jury and they decide from the EVIDENCE if you are guilty. If the jury thinks there isn't enough evidence that you committed a crime, then you are free. Haven't you ever heard of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"? You really are an idiot.

I guess there is such thing as a defense attorney. And the defense never has to prepare a case.

Of course they prepare a case, but all they need to do is raise reasonable doubt, not outright prove innocence. That's why character witnesses are so important. If hundreds of people are willing to swear that they know you well and do not believe that you would ever do what you're accused of doing, it makes the prosecution's task that much harder. And in this case, they make Ford's story less believable.

Only to you. Because you wan it to. Hundreds of people were not at those parties and only the people who witnessed the events count.

There are no witnesses. Ford can't remember the date or the place. You believe her. You have no witnesses, date or place. That means you have NOTHING.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

The right is no different.

The right didn't harass Judiciary committee members, make threats, or march out people that accused Kagan and Sotomayor of indecent behavior.

Yeah, the right just refused hearings altogether for Obama.

That's a lie and you know it. They were both confirmed by the Judiciary Committee. Why do you lie?

Dumbfuck, “both?”

There were 3 vacancies during Obama’s presidency, not two.

But thanks for tacitly admitting the right refused to hold confirmation hearings on the third nominee.

Yes, and rightfully so. The Biden rule. I suppose you also want to deny that. You twits have a double standard. You make rules, then change them when you're not in power. If you want to make rules up, then play by those rules whether you have the ball or the other team does. The problem is you spoiled brats only want to play by your rules when you have the ball.

Dumbfuck, Biden never suggested a president be denied confirmation hearings for the remainder of their final year of their term. You’re dumber than shit and you keep digging your hole deeper. Earlier, you called me a “liar” over what you now claim was done “rightfully so.”

 

[dcbl]

The right didn't harass Judiciary committee members, make threats, or march out people that accused Kagan and Sotomayor of indecent behavior.

Yeah, the right just refused hearings altogether for Obama.

That's a lie and you know it. They were both confirmed by the Judiciary Committee. Why do you lie?

Dumbfuck, “both?”

There were 3 vacancies during Obama’s presidency, not two.

But thanks for tacitly admitting the right refused to hold confirmation hearings on the third nominee.

Yes, and rightfully so. The Biden rule. I suppose you also want to deny that. You twits have a double standard. You make rules, then change them when you're not in power. If you want to make rules up, then play by those rules whether you have the ball or the other team does. The problem is you spoiled brats only want to play by your rules when you have the ball.

Dumbfuck, Biden never suggested a president be denied confirmation hearings for the remainder of their final year of their term. You’re dumber than shit and you keep digging your hole deeper. Earlier, you called me a “liar” over what you now claim was done “rightfully so.”

lol

except he did

too bad we have video proof of that

hack

 

[Oldstyle]

He could be one of them? That's your base of proof, IM2? He could be the next Pope! He could be an alien sent from the planet Krypton! You've got women with an obvious liberal bias accusing a man of sexual assaults at the 11th hour of a confirmation hearing that liberals have been trying to derail with any means possible since it began! How about this "could"! You liberals "could" be smearing an innocent man because you don't want a conservative seated on the Supreme Court! You "could" be using women who feel that lying to keep him off the court is a moral thing to do!

Sorry but conservatives have been confirmed before in recent years when the senate was majority democrat.

Not when the balance of power has been at stake

To be fair, we haven't confirmed a democratic appointee under the same circumstances either
This is political payback for Garland and a fight for the idealogical makeup of the court

Well republicans should have let Garland have a hearing. Don't start whining about politics after you pull a poliical stunt yourself. The reason Garland was refused was so there would be a majority conservative court. You reap what you sow. Republicans are getting what they deserve.

so this isnt about kavanaugh or his accuser.

its revenge politics.

which means you dont believe the shit you say but you feel the other side deserves this treatment.

You don't get to ignore what republicans did to make this claim. They refused to do their constitutional duty to deny a president his right to nominate a supreme court justice and they held up or denied appointments of countless federal judges.

Did that make sense when you typed it?
Do you not know that Harry Reid used the nuclear option to seat "countless" far left Federal Judges? Do you also not know that he was warned by Mitch McConnell that doing so might come back to bite Democrats in the ass somewhere down the line? Well guess what...it's happened JUST THAT WAY!

A rather prominent progressive once lectured the GOP on political reality when he told them "Elections have consequences...I won!" The problem with you folks on the left is that you only believe that elections have consequences when YOU win...not the other way around!

 

[iceberg]

The right didn't harass Judiciary committee members, make threats, or march out people that accused Kagan and Sotomayor of indecent behavior.

Yeah, the right just refused hearings altogether for Obama.

That's a lie and you know it. They were both confirmed by the Judiciary Committee. Why do you lie?

Dumbfuck, “both?”

There were 3 vacancies during Obama’s presidency, not two.

But thanks for tacitly admitting the right refused to hold confirmation hearings on the third nominee.

Yes, and rightfully so. The Biden rule. I suppose you also want to deny that. You twits have a double standard. You make rules, then change them when you're not in power. If you want to make rules up, then play by those rules whether you have the ball or the other team does. The problem is you spoiled brats only want to play by your rules when you have the ball.

Dumbfuck, Biden never suggested a president be denied confirmation hearings for the remainder of their final year of their term. You’re dumber than shit and you keep digging your hole deeper. Earlier, you called me a “liar” over what you now claim was done “rightfully so.”

Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

It may be Vice President Joseph R. Biden who dooms President Obama’s hopes of reshaping the Supreme Court and picking a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after Republicans unearthed a 1992 speech in which then-Sen. Biden said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.
-----
you may wanna do some research. but then again, it would be pointless for you cause you'd call the source a liar if you don't like it.

 

[Oldstyle]

The right didn't harass Judiciary committee members, make threats, or march out people that accused Kagan and Sotomayor of indecent behavior.

Yeah, the right just refused hearings altogether for Obama.

That's a lie and you know it. They were both confirmed by the Judiciary Committee. Why do you lie?

Dumbfuck, “both?”

There were 3 vacancies during Obama’s presidency, not two.

But thanks for tacitly admitting the right refused to hold confirmation hearings on the third nominee.

Yes, and rightfully so. The Biden rule. I suppose you also want to deny that. You twits have a double standard. You make rules, then change them when you're not in power. If you want to make rules up, then play by those rules whether you have the ball or the other team does. The problem is you spoiled brats only want to play by your rules when you have the ball.

Dumbfuck, Biden never suggested a president be denied confirmation hearings for the remainder of their final year of their term. You’re dumber than shit and you keep digging your hole deeper. Earlier, you called me a “liar” over what you now claim was done “rightfully so.”

You are a liar, Faun. I showed you the quote where Biden did indeed "suggest" Presidents shouldn't nominate anyone to the Supreme Court in the last year of their term. You just chose to ignore it.

 

[basquebromance]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

 

[iceberg]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

yea, that will only empower the democrats to do this every single time they don't get their way.

unless you have some credible proof, we move on.

 

[Oldstyle]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

Ford is a judge? God, you're an idiot!

There are women on the committee and trust me...they will ALL do their best to protect poor Professor Ford! (eye roll)

 

[basquebromance]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

Ford is a judge? God, you're an idiot!

come to think of it, Trump should make her Justice Ford after what she's been throough

 

[iceberg]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

Ford is a judge? God, you're an idiot!

come to think of it, Trump should make her Justice Ford after what she's been throough

how about SCOTUS Cruz to replace kavanaugh?

 

[Oldstyle]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

Ford is a judge? God, you're an idiot!

come to think of it, Trump should make her Justice Ford after what she's been throough

What exactly is it that "she" has been through? She accused another person of attempted rape and murder 36 years after it allegedly happened just as that person was about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court! Did she think that wasn't going to disrupt her life? Unless Christina Ford is the dumbest person on the planet...she knew damn well what kind of reaction her allegations were going to create and she did it anyways.

If it turns out she was put up to this by some liberal group Trump should make her an inmate at a nice Federal prison.

 

[basquebromance]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

Ford is a judge? God, you're an idiot!

come to think of it, Trump should make her Justice Ford after what she's been throough

how about SCOTUS Cruz to replace kavanaugh?

yeah but i would miss makin fun of Lyin Ted too much. we wouldnt get to hear from him much if he were a justice

 

[basquebromance]

Judge Ford is not ready to testify, clearly. Kavanaugh's nomination should be rescinded, that's the fair thing. she's not ready. no one has informed her she can bring a female advocate with her to present during the hearing. she has just been through this ordeal with Kavanaugh, and now they put her in a room with these dominant authority figures, the Senators. i wish there would be another female present to make her feel more comfortable. otherwise, CANCEL THE HEARINGS!

the Senators will think she's just another drunk girl, and make her feel like she's the perp. i mean is she supposed to tell them in detail how it happened. this is unfair to make her go through this.

Ford is a judge? God, you're an idiot!

come to think of it, Trump should make her Justice Ford after what she's been throough

What exactly is it that "she" has been through? She accused another person of attempted rape and murder 36 years after it allegedly happened just as that person was about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court! Did she think that wasn't going to disrupt her life? Unless Christina Ford is the dumbest person on the planet...she knew damn well what kind of reaction her allegations were going to create and she did it anyways.

If it turns out she was put up to this by some liberal group Trump should make her an inmate at a nice Federal prison.

well, its Kavanaugh's word against 300 million eyewitnesses.

good luck!

 

[Lesh]

Kavanaugh claimed to have a stellar reputation in college.

Not so much

His college roommate

“I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk,” Roche told ABC 7. “I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk.”

Roche said it was “believable” to him that Kavanaugh was part of a group of men who thought it was fun to torment women.