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

[Coyote]

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?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

------------------------------------------- names of WHO . I think that widdle babee womens names are already with held in 'rape' cases aren't they ?? Women are already treated like SPECIAL little flowers if i am correct Coyote .

Sorry that causes problems for you dude...

 

[pismoe]

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?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

------------------------------------------- names of WHO . I think that widdle babee womens names are already with held in 'rape' cases aren't they ?? Women are already treated like SPECIAL little flowers if i am correct Coyote .

Sorry that causes problems for you dude...

------------------------------------------------- Don't know who you are talking to but if you are replying to me . Well , it doesn't cause me problems but it is curious that and wrong that EQUAL WOMEN do get SPECIAL treatment which is what i oppose . Just something for me to know and advertise about widdle babee Adult women Coyote .

 

[Montrovant]

It is a tenet of American society, of which you know nothing of.

I was under the impression it is the legislative branch, not the judicial, that is voting on this confirmation.

It's the concept, Montrovant. It's not limited to the judicial in concept.
Concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.

Certainly the concept of innocent until proven guilty can be applied outside of trials. I would never deny that. However, you made the thread title specifically about the rule of law, and there is no law I am aware of that requires representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty in confirmation voting.

More, you specifically mentioned the judicial system in the OP, and asked if it was time to change the judicial system, despite this confirmation being in the legislature.

As I just said in another post, I think your argument is a moral one, but you've set it up as as legal one. Unless there is some law that directs representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty, that does not apply in this instance.

Maybe we should specifically apply the concept to these confirmation hearings and make it a legal issue, but I don't believe it is for now.

To be clear, as far as the specific accusations against Kavanaugh are concerned, I personally tend to look at them through an innocent until proven guilty lens. I have not seen or heard enough evidence to decide the man is guilty.

Advice and Consent is a LEGAL PROCESS.... You lose!

Whether or not something is a legal process does not decide whether the presumption of innocence applies. Many legal processes have nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence. Unless you can show where the presumption of innocence applies to a confirmation vote, legally, it does not apply here.

A marriage is a legal process, but there is no presumption of innocence, because there is no innocence or guilt involved.

If so, it is a tenet which rarely seems to be practiced. The reason 'the court of public opinion' gets brought up a lot is because people tend to make judgements without the sort of rigorous evidence a legal trial requires. This confirmation hearing is just the most recent of many, many examples.

 

[Pilot1]

Yes, Obama, and the Progressives "Fundamental Transformation" requires the rule of law be changed, our national sovereignty be eroded, and European style socialism be installed.

 

[Toro]

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?

Notwithstanding whether or not one believed Kavanaugh or Ford, a judicial appointment is not about the rule of law. It is a political process based on the suitability of the individual being appointed. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" standard in the political process.

Agreed, that isn't the point of the OP. The point is the participants such as MSM, senators, and the protesters reacted in a way that seemed
to be willing to change the rule of law for political expediency. I just threw it out there chumming the waters to see what I would get.
You would have to admit that this went beyond a generic political process. The political process would have had it come out in the Sept. hearings
or before if they were sincere.

In a time when a large portion of the country thinks the last President was born in Kenya, I don’t think it went outside the generic political process.

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

.names are withheld until an investigation is complete.

Ford wanted that....


someone on the Left didn't

 

[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?

Notwithstanding whether or not one believed Kavanaugh or Ford, a judicial appointment is not about the rule of law. It is a political process based on the suitability of the individual being appointed. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" standard in the political process.

Agreed, that isn't the point of the OP. The point is the participants such as MSM, senators, and the protesters reacted in a way that seemed
to be willing to change the rule of law for political expediency. I just threw it out there chumming the waters to see what I would get.
You would have to admit that this went beyond a generic political process. The political process would have had it come out in the Sept. hearings
or before if they were sincere.

In a time when a large portion of the country thinks the last President was born in Kenya, I don’t think it went outside the generic political process.

But, not a character assassination. Rapist....serial rapist, pedophile? Did they have a senate...."job interview" on the subject?
You're talking apples and oranges, Toro.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Public hanging within 2 weeks after the trial?

Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Toro]

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?

Notwithstanding whether or not one believed Kavanaugh or Ford, a judicial appointment is not about the rule of law. It is a political process based on the suitability of the individual being appointed. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" standard in the political process.

Agreed, that isn't the point of the OP. The point is the participants such as MSM, senators, and the protesters reacted in a way that seemed
to be willing to change the rule of law for political expediency. I just threw it out there chumming the waters to see what I would get.
You would have to admit that this went beyond a generic political process. The political process would have had it come out in the Sept. hearings
or before if they were sincere.

In a time when a large portion of the country thinks the last President was born in Kenya, I don’t think it went outside the generic political process.

But, not a character assassination. Rapist....serial rapist, pedophile? Did they have a senate...."job interview" on the subject?
You're talking apples and oranges, Toro.

Yeah, you’re right. Nobody said shit like that about the Clintons.

 

[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?

Notwithstanding whether or not one believed Kavanaugh or Ford, a judicial appointment is not about the rule of law. It is a political process based on the suitability of the individual being appointed. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" standard in the political process.

Agreed, that isn't the point of the OP. The point is the participants such as MSM, senators, and the protesters reacted in a way that seemed
to be willing to change the rule of law for political expediency. I just threw it out there chumming the waters to see what I would get.
You would have to admit that this went beyond a generic political process. The political process would have had it come out in the Sept. hearings
or before if they were sincere.

In a time when a large portion of the country thinks the last President was born in Kenya, I don’t think it went outside the generic political process.

But, not a character assassination. Rapist....serial rapist, pedophile? Did they have a senate...."job interview" on the subject?
You're talking apples and oranges, Toro.

Yeah, you’re right. Nobody said shit like that about the Clintons.

Now you're just silly, Not one shred of evidence, unless you count public opinion as evidence...and right now I think you do....which surprises me.
There was plenty of evidence against the Clintons...paper trails.....stained blue dress....witnesses with dates, times, days, addresses.
Yeah, Toro, just like the Clintons

 

[RealDave]

Democrat Party's 2018 platform is based entirely on "Guilt by accusation".

Republicans are running on: Rape & sexual assault os OK if there are no witnesses.

Lying under oath is permissible if you are a Republican.

--------------------------------------- i don't think so , i think that rape and sex assault should be reported in timely fashion to proper authorities and whatever evidence should be gathered in a timely fashion RDave .

What you think is worthless. What counts is what psychiatrists think. They know the trauma & how it affects people.

All Ford was doing is letting people know what Kavanaugh had done. She didn't realize so many of you don't give a shit.

You voted for Trump. Accused by 18 women. Accused of Child rape Accused of Spousal Rape.., An admitted Groper.

'Hell, you probably wanted Kavanaugh even more after Ford told her story.


Republicans have proven that women don't matter. Grassley called them weak, Trump, Kavanaugh & you think sexual assault should be rewarded.

 

[RealDave]

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?

Notwithstanding whether or not one believed Kavanaugh or Ford, a judicial appointment is not about the rule of law. It is a political process based on the suitability of the individual being appointed. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" standard in the political process.

Agreed, that isn't the point of the OP. The point is the participants such as MSM, senators, and the protesters reacted in a way that seemed
to be willing to change the rule of law for political expediency. I just threw it out there chumming the waters to see what I would get.
You would have to admit that this went beyond a generic political process. The political process would have had it come out in the Sept. hearings
or before if they were sincere.

In a time when a large portion of the country thinks the last President was born in Kenya, I don’t think it went outside the generic political process.

But, not a character assassination. Rapist....serial rapist, pedophile? Did they have a senate...."job interview" on the subject?
You're talking apples and oranges, Toro.

Yeah, you’re right. Nobody said shit like that about the Clintons.

YOU DID> You ******* asswipes ran screaming through the streets " OMG OMG OMG OMG MonIca!!!!!, OMG OMG OMG:"

Then you turn around & voted for a POS like Trump.

The vast majority of accusations again Clinton came after his elections. So people were not voting knowing about these. You knew about Trump.
'

 

[Auld Phart]

Republicans have proven that women don't matter.

Don't matter much to Bill and Hillary did they?

Nor the Democrats that gave him a pass on impeachment.

But, keep posting your hypocrisy
for everyone to see.


Makes reading threads a pleasure

 

[RealDave]

Advice and Consent is based on FACTS... Credible and Corroborated FACTS.. Not fantasy allegations with no basis.. Again, your point fails..

I don't know what you think my point is, but you are clearly misapprehending it.

I don't think even you could "apprehend" your own point..... You seem to be running in circles looking for it...

My point, which others have also brought up, is that a vote on a Supreme Court nominee is not a trial and the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty does not apply. Legally Kavanaugh remains innocent of any crime, but there is no requirement for the representatives to vote based on his legal innocence, nor even to take his innocence or guilt into consideration.

Not every legal process involves the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Whether the accusations are fantasy allegations or based on facts, the representatives who are voting are not legally required to assume Kavanaugh's innocence so far as I am aware. They are not even required to take his innocence or guilt into account in their voting.

The idea that the legal system is being changed by these accusations is ridiculous. The legal system has not presumed that Kavanaugh is guilty. What public opinion or the personal opinion of the representatives might be does not change Kavanaugh's legal presumption of innocence.

Still too unclear for you?

What has been portrayed in the press and by our politicians, Kavanaughs legal presumption of innocence has been challenged.
Kav has been convicted in the court of public opinion. I know this wasn't a criminal case. The optics I have witnessed made me wonder if liberals think its time to change the rule of law? You are one of the few from the left that gave a thought provoking answer to the question. Most gave responses which was why the question seemed relevant.

I'm not "from the left," but I appreciate the post.

I completely agree that too many people have seemingly assumed Kavanaugh's guilt based on partisan affiliation. To be fair, I think plenty of people probably believe in his innocence not because of the concept of innocent until proven guilty, but because of partisan affiliation.

Unfortunately you are almost certainly right that there are some extremists who would like to see the presumption of innocence degraded, if not done away with; in certain cases, at least. I don't think it is any sort of general movement among liberals, though. I certainly hope not! However, again, the rule of law has not been challenged here. Kavanaugh is not being charged with a crime, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. Legally speaking, he maintains the presumption of innocence, regardless of the result of his confirmation vote or the hooplah surrounding it.

Since the proof of guilt requires a trial, are you saying that everyone is innocent of any crime that is too old, or has no witnesses or physical proof?

This is a case of he aid/she said.

Ford said yes, Kavanaugh said no, his buddy in the room can't remember. Criminal cases involve this situation often. I think of Jerry Sandusky, Those priests, Bill Cosby. These do get prosecuted & it comes down to credibility.

We know Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking and several other points.

We know the FBI investigation never spoke with other accusers, other classmates with information, never investigated the lies. We know Trump liedabout the scope of the FBI investigation as did Grassley.We know Judge Roberts hid complaints he had received from the District Courts in DC.

It comes down to character & credibility. Kavanaugh showed neither in his rant-like testimony.
The Republican party showed no character whatsoever.

 

[Coyote]

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?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

.names are withheld until an investigation is complete.

Ford wanted that....


someone on the Left didn't

I guess the right did not want it badly enough either since it never came up again...

 

[RealDave]

Republicans have proven that women don't matter.

Don't matter much to Bill and Hillary did they?

Nor the Democrats that gave him a pass on impeachment.

But, keep posting your hypocrisy
for everyone to see.


Makes reading threads a pleasure

So you think it was proper to prosecute Bill for lying under oath but not Kavanaugh for lying under oath. Who are you calling a hypocrite here?

Bull supposedly lied about a consensual sexual affair while Kavanaugh was lying about attempted Rape.

Sill you can't see the difference.

 

[RealDave]

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?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

------------------------------------------- names of WHO . I think that widdle babee womens names are already with held in 'rape' cases aren't they ?? Women are already treated like SPECIAL little flowers if i am correct Coyote .

Sorry that causes problems for you dude...

------------------------------------------------- Don't know who you are talking to but if you are replying to me . Well , it doesn't cause me problems but it is curious that and wrong that EQUAL WOMEN do get SPECIAL treatment which is what i oppose . Just something for me to know and advertise about widdle babee Adult women Coyote .

The law doesn't say just women, asshole. It says victims.

 

[Rustic]

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?

Yep, They acted like Europeans. Their system is guilty until proven innocent, And they have no right to freedom of speech over there and no right to firearms.

 

[Rustic]

Republicans have proven that women don't matter.

Don't matter much to Bill and Hillary did they?

Nor the Democrats that gave him a pass on impeachment.

But, keep posting your hypocrisy
for everyone to see.


Makes reading threads a pleasure

So you think it was proper to prosecute Bill for lying under oath but not Kavanaugh for lying under oath. Who are you calling a hypocrite here?

Bull supposedly lied about a consensual sexual affair while Kavanaugh was lying about attempted Rape.

Sill you can't see the difference.

She did not know what happened, where it happened, how it happened, and she has no proof... you silly little ******

 

[Montrovant]

I don't know what you think my point is, but you are clearly misapprehending it.

I don't think even you could "apprehend" your own point..... You seem to be running in circles looking for it...

My point, which others have also brought up, is that a vote on a Supreme Court nominee is not a trial and the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty does not apply. Legally Kavanaugh remains innocent of any crime, but there is no requirement for the representatives to vote based on his legal innocence, nor even to take his innocence or guilt into consideration.

Not every legal process involves the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Whether the accusations are fantasy allegations or based on facts, the representatives who are voting are not legally required to assume Kavanaugh's innocence so far as I am aware. They are not even required to take his innocence or guilt into account in their voting.

The idea that the legal system is being changed by these accusations is ridiculous. The legal system has not presumed that Kavanaugh is guilty. What public opinion or the personal opinion of the representatives might be does not change Kavanaugh's legal presumption of innocence.

Still too unclear for you?

What has been portrayed in the press and by our politicians, Kavanaughs legal presumption of innocence has been challenged.
Kav has been convicted in the court of public opinion. I know this wasn't a criminal case. The optics I have witnessed made me wonder if liberals think its time to change the rule of law? You are one of the few from the left that gave a thought provoking answer to the question. Most gave responses which was why the question seemed relevant.

I'm not "from the left," but I appreciate the post.

I completely agree that too many people have seemingly assumed Kavanaugh's guilt based on partisan affiliation. To be fair, I think plenty of people probably believe in his innocence not because of the concept of innocent until proven guilty, but because of partisan affiliation.

Unfortunately you are almost certainly right that there are some extremists who would like to see the presumption of innocence degraded, if not done away with; in certain cases, at least. I don't think it is any sort of general movement among liberals, though. I certainly hope not! However, again, the rule of law has not been challenged here. Kavanaugh is not being charged with a crime, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. Legally speaking, he maintains the presumption of innocence, regardless of the result of his confirmation vote or the hooplah surrounding it.

Since the proof of guilt requires a trial, are you saying that everyone is innocent of any crime that is too old, or has no witnesses or physical proof?

This is a case of he aid/she said.

Ford said yes, Kavanaugh said no, his buddy in the room can't remember. Criminal cases involve this situation often. I think of Jerry Sandusky, Those priests, Bill Cosby. These do get prosecuted & it comes down to credibility.

We know Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking and several other points.

We know the FBI investigation never spoke with other accusers, other classmates with information, never investigated the lies. We know Trump liedabout the scope of the FBI investigation as did Grassley.We know Judge Roberts hid complaints he had received from the District Courts in DC.

It comes down to character & credibility. Kavanaugh showed neither in his rant-like testimony.
The Republican party showed no character whatsoever.

I'm saying just what I posted. Legally, everyone is presumed innocent until convicted of a crime; that includes Kavanaugh.