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

[Rustic]

Ever hear of Crystal Gail Mangum?

Your drag name?

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

If you knew who she was, why are you so adamant about Ford being credible?

The D behind her name?

Did Crystal have a D behind her name?

Jesus fuck. I know there are false accusations made. It does NOT MEAN KAVANAUGH IS INNOCENT, you stupid SHIT.

Crystal lied therefore no man EVER EVER EVER EVER assaulted anyone. Really. You are really this fucking stupid?

I believe Ford because of who she is, a well known college professor. She presented a credible testimony.

Kavanaugh ranted drooled & acted like a deranged person as he lied under oath.

Professors are much like career politicians, they failed in real life.

 

[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?

A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****

You dont get falsely accused of rape at a job interview ya halfwit.

You may have to defend yourself from bad references. And how do you know they were false accusations? Were you there?

If yoou wrre interviewing a candidate & someone had an accusation, you would base your decision on the credibility of the applicant VS the credibility of the reference. If there was doubt, you wouldn't give thast person a lifetime appointment.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****

You dont get falsely accused of rape at a job interview ya halfwit.

You may have to defend yourself from bad references. And how do you know they were false accusations? Were you there?

Ya want to compare a bad reference to being accused of rape?

Yeah I was there...and it was actually slick willy that did it.

 

[Rustic]

None of my liberal friends are answering the question in the OP.
I would like them to be honest and answer one way or the other.

I think a presumption of innocence should be maintained in our judicial system. Why do you think this is a problem among liberals? Where is the Conservative presumption of innocence with the Clintons? It's "Lock her up! Lock her up!" Conservatives only care about a presumption of innocence if it involves one of their own. Otherwise they are pretty much assumed to be guilty.

The Clintons are above the law

 

[Borillar]

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?

A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****

You dont get falsely accused of rape at a job interview ya halfwit.

You may have to defend yourself from bad references. And how do you know they were false accusations? Were you there?

If yoou wrre interviewing a candidate & someone had an accusation, you would base your decision on the credibility of the applicant VS the credibility of the reference. If there was doubt, you wouldn't give thast person a lifetime appointment.

Yep, that's probably why he couldn't muster more than 50 votes.

 

[RealDave]

Your drag name?

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

If you knew who she was, why are you so adamant about Ford being credible?

The D behind her name?

Did Crystal have a D behind her name?

Jesus fuck. I know there are false accusations made. It does NOT MEAN KAVANAUGH IS INNOCENT, you stupid SHIT.

Crystal lied therefore no man EVER EVER EVER EVER assaulted anyone. Really. You are really this fucking stupid?

I believe Ford because of who she is, a well known college professor. She presented a credible testimony.

Kavanaugh ranted drooled & acted like a deranged person as he lied under oath.

Professors are much like career politicians, they failed in real life.

Bullshit College Professors typically have tenure. There was nothing for her to gain.

Being a professor is an honored career.

 

[Rustic]

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

If you knew who she was, why are you so adamant about Ford being credible?

The D behind her name?

Did Crystal have a D behind her name?

Jesus fuck. I know there are false accusations made. It does NOT MEAN KAVANAUGH IS INNOCENT, you stupid SHIT.

Crystal lied therefore no man EVER EVER EVER EVER assaulted anyone. Really. You are really this fucking stupid?

I believe Ford because of who she is, a well known college professor. She presented a credible testimony.

Kavanaugh ranted drooled & acted like a deranged person as he lied under oath.

Professors are much like career politicians, they failed in real life.

Bullshit College Professors typically have tenure. There was nothing for her to gain.

Being a professor is an honored career.

 

[bendog]

Well an honored career it is, but apparently not everyone agrees. LOL

 

[RealDave]

None of my liberal friends are answering the question in the OP.
I would like them to be honest and answer one way or the other.

I think a presumption of innocence should be maintained in our judicial system. Why do you think this is a problem among liberals? Where is the Conservative presumption of innocence with the Clintons? It's "Lock her up! Lock her up!" Conservatives only care about a presumption of innocence if it involves one of their own. Otherwise they are pretty much assumed to be guilty.

False? Right. Ford was credible,. A college professor. Well renowned in her field.

You believed the ramblings of a guy who spent his high school and college life as a sloppy drunk.

interesting

you're using Ford's adult life, against Kavanaughs teen life...

do you have ANY idea why people laugh at you?

Nope. Ford shared something from her teen life. Her current life gives it credibility

Kavanaugh was a drunk as a teen & his current estimony wad not credible as it contained lies.

Trump made fun of a disabled reporter & you laughed.

Why would I be surprised that a POS low life scumbag like you would laugfh at mocking a victim of sexual assault.

You people are pathetc.

Ford lied and was paid for it

Who paid her?

 

[RealDave]

Well an honored career it is, but apparently not everyone agrees. LOL

Hi Mitt

 

[RealDave]

She knows what happened. Is attempted rape different depending on which house it is in???? Does it not exist unless there are witnesses?

Does a women get assaulted in the middfle of the forrest if no one is there to see?

Ever hear of Crystal Gail Mangum?

Your drag name?

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

one?

need the names of a dozen or more that did similar stunts?

So how many false accusers does to take to make all accusers liars?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Jesus fuck. I know there are false accusations made. It does NOT MEAN KAVANAUGH IS INNOCENT, you stupid SHIT.

Crystal lied therefore no man EVER EVER EVER EVER assaulted anyone. Really. You are really this fucking stupid?

I believe Ford because of who she is, a well known college professor. She presented a credible testimony.

Kavanaugh ranted drooled & acted like a deranged person as he lied under oath.

Unhinged much, sir?

 

[jc456]

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?

we don't need to return to medieval times to live in america.

 

[Auld Phart]

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

If you knew who she was, why are you so adamant about Ford being credible?

The D behind her name?

Did Crystal have a D behind her name?

Jesus fuck. I know there are false accusations made. It does NOT MEAN KAVANAUGH IS INNOCENT, you stupid SHIT.

Crystal lied therefore no man EVER EVER EVER EVER assaulted anyone. Really. You are really this fucking stupid?

I believe Ford because of who she is, a well known college professor. She presented a credible testimony.

Kavanaugh ranted drooled & acted like a deranged person as he lied under oath.

Professors are much like career politicians, they failed in real life.

Bullshit College Professors typically have tenure. There was nothing for her to gain.

Being a professor is an honored career.

Being a professor is an honored career.

So is being a judge

 

[Auld Phart]

Ever hear of Crystal Gail Mangum?

Your drag name?

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

one?

need the names of a dozen or more that did similar stunts?

So how many false accusers does to take to make all accusers liars?

how many does it take to taint the pot?

answer:

1

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ever hear of Crystal Gail Mangum?

Your drag name?

look it up

or

I'll make it easier on you.

Crystal Mangum - Wikipedia

perfect reason to claim ALL women should be believed.

I knew who she is. Because one woman lying about it makes Kavanaugh & Trump innocent. I get it.

one?

need the names of a dozen or more that did similar stunts?

So how many false accusers does to take to make all accusers liars?

How many false accusers does it take to make all accused guilty?

 

[jc456]

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?

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

and?

 

[bendog]

Well an honored career it is, but apparently not everyone agrees. LOL

Hi Mitt

I voted for Mitt and would have done so again in 16.

 

[jc456]

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?

I didn’t see Kavanaugh convicted of anything......did you?

-------------------------------- [youse guys] --- er , they were on their way of DENYING and Destroying KAV in a Kangaroo Court . Criminal Conviction might have happened at a later date after evidence and here say from the Kangaroo Court had been gathered . Plus if 'guilty till proved innocent' if it had been established as some kind of 'Kangaroo precedent' even in a non Court or Legal case we would never hear the end of it RWinger .

What may have happened is a pretty thin claim.

If this thread is about the rule of law, the concept of presumption of innocence is for trials. While it might be better for the representatives to use the concept when dealing with the nominee, there is no legal requirement to do so that I am aware of. Couching this in terms of rule of law is inaccurate. This is more of a moral question IMO.

it doesn't follow? hmmmmm i thought that was our society. overall society. when did it change?

 

[jc456]

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?

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.

where does guilty until proven innocent work in our society?