Is it Time to Change the Rule of Law in America?

[Jackson]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

Unless of course it is a Democrat that is accused of something. Then a new set of rules take place yet again.

 

[Skylar]

liar
So,you are saying you were so ******* stupid that you voted for Trump & that is Obama's fault?

How did Obama make orump win the nomination? By being black & firing up the racist & bigot vote?

You silly little fuckers forced Obama on the country, now we have Trump.

“Forced?”

Why do you hate Americans so much?

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

No, we need a discussion on how horrendously ignorant conservatives are – this post being one such example.

The rule of law concerns solely the legal process, criminal or civil.

Senate confirmation is a political process, not legal – the notion of the ‘rule of law,’ ‘due process,’ ‘presumption of innocence,’ and ‘proving guilt’ having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

[Meister]

You silly little fuckers forced Obama on the country, now we have Trump.

“Forced?”

Why do you hate Americans so much?

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

What do you mean by “illegitimate?”

You have to ask a democrat, they throw that word around like a football.

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

 

[Toro]

“Forced?”

Why do you hate Americans so much?

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

What do you mean by “illegitimate?”

You have to ask a democrat, they throw that word around like a football.

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

 

[Toro]

You silly little fuckers forced Obama on the country, now we have Trump.

“Forced?”

Why do you hate Americans so much?

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

No, we need a discussion on how horrendously ignorant conservatives are – this post being one such example.

The rule of law concerns solely the legal process, criminal or civil.

Senate confirmation is a political process, not legal – the notion of the ‘rule of law,’ ‘due process,’ ‘presumption of innocence,’ and ‘proving guilt’ having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

You have no clue on what a discussion IS, Clayton, and you have no idea what the OP is about. You're too busy name calling.
But, carry on, your ignorance is noted.

 

[Skylar]

“Forced?”

Why do you hate Americans so much?

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

No, they aren't. But you can't claim to have the 'will of the people' behind you when far more of them voted for the other person than yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

And another ignorant rightwing moron chimes in.

Kavanaugh wasn’t charged with the crime of sexual assault; absent criminal charges ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doesn’t come into play.

Conservatives are as dishonest as they are ignorant.

 

[Meister]

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

What do you mean by “illegitimate?”

You have to ask a democrat, they throw that word around like a football.

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

 

[Toro]

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

No, they aren't. But you can't claim to have the 'will of the people' behind you when far more of them voted for the other person than yourself.

It doesn’t matter.

But it depends on how you define democracy. It doesn’t always mean the most votes. The “will of the people” can also defined in a democracy prior to the election, not ex post.

 

[Toro]

What do you mean by “illegitimate?”

You have to ask a democrat, they throw that word around like a football.

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

 

[bripat9643]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

 

[Meister]

You have to ask a democrat, they throw that word around like a football.

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

You're speaking to the choir, Toro, we both agree to that.

 

[RealDave]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

Lying ****.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

 

[Skylar]

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

No, they aren't. But you can't claim to have the 'will of the people' behind you when far more of them voted for the other person than yourself.

It doesn’t matter.

It most certainly matters if you're claiming that you have the 'will of the people' behind you.

Winning the presidency means you have the will of the electoral college behind you. As the popular vote demonstrated, the people wanted someone else.

 

[RealDave]

You have to ask a democrat, they throw that word around like a football.

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

 

[Meister]

Rustic’s a Democrat?

I didn’t know that.

But you brought it up.

Didn't know he said "illegitimate", I thought he said "forced"
Just my observation

OK. You said “illegitimate” as opposed to “forced.” Why?

I said it because neither side accepted the outcome of a duly legitimate election.

Both elections were legitimate. Everyone knew the rules beforehand. If people don’t like the rules, change them.

So, getting help from a foreign entity is legal?

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

 

[RealDave]

So Jerry Sandusky never molested anyone until his trial ended with a guilty verdict?

No, Sandusky was legally presumed innocent until his trial ended with a guilty verdict. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this, it's a pretty basic concept of the US legal system. Whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime, the justice system is supposed to presume their innocence until such a time as they are convicted. That does not mean that someone did not commit a crime until they are convicted, just that the justice system presumes they did not until they are convicted.

So he never molested those boys until after the trial?

'How the **** did you get so stupid.

Sandusky WAS guilty. From his first molestation he was guilty.

You assume innocence in a court of law. It is the starting point of a trial.

This is not a court pf law.

Sandusky was a child molester the first time he did it.

His accusers did not have witnesses. They did not have proof, Yet Sandusky WAS indeed guilty..

I believe Ford. I did not believe Kavanuagh. So I think Kavanaugh did indeed assault Ford. Is it provable in court? Maybe. But to me he is guilty based on what I heard.

I would not have hired Kavanaugh with his testimony. Not so much for something he did when he was in high school but for his lies, dishonesty, & demeanor.

Certainly we have better options in this country.

Go back and reread what he stated, your comprehension skills seem to be turned off today.

I know what you wrote. You can't seem to distinguish the presumption of innocence for a court case & innocence in real life.

You think Sandusky was innocent until found iiulty in court but in reality he was guilty before the trial even started.

He did it., He molested those kids. He did it whether or not some court said so.

Kavanaugh was NOT on trial. There can be no proof. That does not make Kavanaugh innocent.

According to you every murderer, rapist, theif never ever committed those crimes because they were never caught. That is pretty damn stupid.

you're right, Sandusky did it, we know he did, there is evidence he did it. he did go to court, and we did find out what everyone knew. apples and submarines to the kavanaugh discussion.

so try again. tell us where someone was proven to be guilty without evidence. please, post it up for us all. come now junior, you've got it all and know it all. let's see it.

BTW, I can show where evidence said a man was guilty and 12 jurors said not guilty. Want to know that name?

Wow, you are dense.

You claim Kavanaugh was innocent because there was no court case.

If I murder someone & I don't get caught, am I innocent?

 

[bripat9643]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

That isn't just hyperbole. You can see the truth of it when you look at what they do on college campuses. Male students accused of sex offenses are often not even allowed to defend themselves. They aren't allowed to question their accusers, and the standard of evidence is much lower than in a real trial. Obama supported these kangaroo courts.

Progs are the scum of the earth.

Lying ****.

Colleges have their own rules of conduct. If you don't like them, go to another school,

I know of no college that listens only to one side. You are lying.

Public universities that are funded by the taxpayers are not entitled to establish their own rules of evidence that violate the Constitution. Anyone who says they can is a fascist piece of shit.