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

[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?

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 .

 

[BlackFlag]

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 ****

Good ... Then your a fucking rapist that should never be believed... now get the fuck out.. Just applying your own standard to YOU!

No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end, rape supporter.

 

[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 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.

 

[The VOR]

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 ****

The simpletons don't know the difference.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

No.

 

[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 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.

 

[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?

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

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

 

[BlackFlag]

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 ****

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

Oh so October has just been a figment of the imagination

Retard

 

[Meister]

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.

 

[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?

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

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

Oh so October has just been a figment of the imagination

Retard

That wasn't the job interview. The job interview was in Sept.
The political game was in Oct. Where have you been? And why do you feel a need to insult? It doesn't advance your opinion at all.

 

[BlackFlag]

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 ****

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

Oh so October has just been a figment of the imagination

Retard

That wasn't the job interview. The job interview was in Sept.
The political game was in Oct. Where have you been? And why do you feel a need to insult? It doesn't advance your opinion at all.

I see trash, I point out its trash. You gonna be a snowflake about it?

 

[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.

 

[miketx]

As long as it's WillHaftaWaite Rules, I agree.


and I am always innocent, by decree.


Oops


sorry, got carried away.

Presumption of innocence, for BOTH parties should be the Rule.

It is the rule, but dimstains ignore it.

 

[Meister]

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

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

Oh so October has just been a figment of the imagination

Retard

That wasn't the job interview. The job interview was in Sept.
The political game was in Oct. Where have you been? And why do you feel a need to insult? It doesn't advance your opinion at all.

I see trash, I point out its trash. You gonna be a snowflake about it?

Let's see, you ignore the obvious, you won't answer the question in the OP, and you like to insult, got it.
You got nuttin', so please carry on with your insults, they mean nothing other than you're limited.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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

 

[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?

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

Good ... Then your a fucking rapist that should never be believed... now get the fuck out.. Just applying your own standard to YOU!

No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end, rape supporter.

No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end,

Same thing Kavanaugh has stated...

yet you've convicted him with your comments.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

Oh so October has just been a figment of the imagination

Retard

That wasn't the job interview. The job interview was in Sept.
The political game was in Oct. Where have you been? And why do you feel a need to insult? It doesn't advance your opinion at all.

I see trash, I point out its trash. You gonna be a snowflake about it?

do you practice in front of a mirror?

 

[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.

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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.

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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 ****

Good ... Then your a fucking rapist that should never be believed... now get the fuck out.. Just applying your own standard to YOU!

No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end, rape supporter.

No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end,

Same thing Kavanaugh has stated...

yet you've convicted him with your comments.

I guess guilt depends on your party affiliation and agenda equaling his..