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

[Marion Morrison]

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.

There should be a gallows waiting for those in a town near you.

It's so economical, it's not even funny.

 

[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.

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?

Progressives like George Soros

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Liberal, conservative, it does not matter. Partisans change tunes depending on the politics of the person in question.

 

[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?

I say you can't tell a criminal court from public opinion.

I say that if you took a public poll, there would be a surprise waiting for you as to the results.
Kav was tried on public opinion and in the MSM. These same people would want the Rule of Law changed.
Which was my point.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Lets rate your post, LIE, LIE, LIE, and LIE that earns you a 100% rating.

 

[easyt65]

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.

Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!

The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.

They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.

The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they damn-well should have.

And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?

F* THAT, AND F* YOU!

Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.

U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.

You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?

You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...without having any evidence of any crime...

...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit?

Because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!

Again, F* That!

 

[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.

Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!

The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.

They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.

The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they dann-well should have.

And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?

F* THAT, AND F* YOU!

Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.

U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.

You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?

You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...

...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit...

...because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!

Again, F* That!

Easyt65, you're speaking to the choir, also....I'm not a liberal socialist. In this OP I was trying to to expose how the liberals, even on this board would change the rule of law. After witnessing what I saw in the media, in the senate and the protesters, it was obvious that they would for nothing more than political expediency. It was a frothing political game being played by the democrats.
I'm sorry that my thread sent you over the cliff, that was not intended, I just wanted to expose the obvious and bring a real issue into the light.

 

[RealDave]

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.

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 fuck 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.

 

[Meister]

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.

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 fuck 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.

 

[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?

Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?

well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?

And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?

 

[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.

Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!

The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.

They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.

The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they damn-well should have.

And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?

F* THAT, AND F* YOU!

Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.

U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.

You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?

You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...without having any evidence of any crime...

...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit?

Because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!

Again, F* That!

A accusation by a victim (A well renowned, well respected victim) is NOT rumor.

 

[jc456]

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.

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 fuck 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.

Sandusky was caught and several individuals kept his secret. sickening human beings. sickening.

kavanaugh was never proven guilty. neither was he found to have done anything. and you can't prove it. you'd fail in a court. see, that accusation if used without evidence for not giving him the job, would go to court as a insufficient reason not to hire. you'd be screwed with a lawsuit sweetheart. defamation of character.

 

[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.

Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!

The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.

They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.

The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they damn-well should have.

And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?

F* THAT, AND F* YOU!

Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.

U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.

You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?

You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...without having any evidence of any crime...

...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit?

Because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!

Again, F* That!

A accusation by a victim (A well renowned, well respected victim) is NOT rumor.

So is this the standard now for a conviction? Just an accusation?
Well renowned and well respected is subjective, Dave

 

[RealDave]

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.

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 fuck 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.

 

[RealDave]

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.

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 fuck 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.

Sandusky was caught and several individuals kept his secret. sickening human beings. sickening.

kavanaugh was never proven guilty. neither was he found to have done anything. and you can't prove it. you'd fail in a court. see, that accusation if used without evidence for not giving him the job, would go to court as a insufficient reason not to hire. you'd be screwed with a lawsuit sweetheart. defamation of character.

There are thousands of cases of she said/he said that go to court & people convicted. How do you people get this naive? No one saw it so no one is guilty? Really?

 

[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.

Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!

The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.

They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.

The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they damn-well should have.

And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?

F* THAT, AND F* YOU!

Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.

U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.

You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?

You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...without having any evidence of any crime...

...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit?

Because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!

Again, F* That!

A accusation by a victim (A well renowned, well respected victim) is NOT rumor.

sure it is without corroboration. And that would either be someone seeing it, someone who it was reported to or a police report. no way on mther fking earth does someone get to merely point at a person and say he did it. evidence matters. It matters in all of life scenarios, doesn't need to be a trial.

 

[boedicca]

I'll stick with the classics. Innocent Until Proven Guilty was good enough for citizens of Rome, it's good enough for us.

Don't mess with two millennia of Western Civilization's Progress regarding the Rights of the Individual.

 

[jc456]

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

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 fuck 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.

Sandusky was caught and several individuals kept his secret. sickening human beings. sickening.

kavanaugh was never proven guilty. neither was he found to have done anything. and you can't prove it. you'd fail in a court. see, that accusation if used without evidence for not giving him the job, would go to court as a insufficient reason not to hire. you'd be screwed with a lawsuit sweetheart. defamation of character.

There are thousands of cases of she said/he said that go to court & people convicted. How do you people get this naive? No one saw it so no one is guilty? Really?

yep, no one saw it no one is guilty. It's our law and been that way in society since medieval times. but, sure post one, and the one's you post will have some sort of corroboration, pattern, or a report or dna. there will always need to be evidence. sorry bubba.