Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
But, the concept is still legitimate, the democrat party was playing right into it. This went beyond the questions of character. This was taking unsubstantiatedWe 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 think what they did was very likely sheer politics. They were hoping to stir up the MeToo vote for the upcoming elections.
But it's not a criminal trial. Due process and the usual rules of evidence don't apply. He's being considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court and questions of character are perfectly valid. If he's a sexist pig when he drinks, we might want to reconsider his appointment. If he still drinks.
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?
Advice and Consent is based on FACTS... Credible and Corroborated FACTS.. Not fantasy allegations with no basis.. Again, your point fails..Advice and Consent is a LEGAL PROCESS.... You lose!It's the concept, Montrovant. It's not limited to the judicial in concept.I was under the impression it is the legislative branch, not the judicial, that is voting on this confirmation.
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.
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..Advice and Consent is a LEGAL PROCESS.... You lose!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.
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.
I don't know what you think my point is, but you are clearly misapprehending it.
This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".
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 discussion needed at all. Progressives try to change the rules every time they lose.
That is the Goal of Social Justice... No accountability to anyone and any accusation from any of them will do, to convict you..This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".
Dem's want to rule, period. No elections, they HATE that they are accountable to voters and demonstrate their contempt for average Americans on a regular basis.
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?
lolWe 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?
~~~~~~
Perhaps we should tie the accused up weigh him down and throw him into deep water, if he floats then he's innocent. Eh?
Then there's the other option. Lynch him first, then ask him to defend him self.
------------------------------------ as Newt said , dems want to Rule or Ruin .This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".
Dem's want to rule, period. No elections, they HATE that they are accountable to voters and demonstrate their contempt for average Americans on a regular basis.
Let's do the sink or float thing. I could tell a bald faced lie and still be found innocent.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?
~~~~~~
Perhaps we should tie the accused up weigh him down and throw him into deep water, if he floats then he's innocent. Eh?
Then there's the other option. Lynch him first, then ask him to defend him self.
You didn't ask the pertinent question. Is it time to abandon all pretense of freedom in the USA?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?
Advice and Consent is based on FACTS... Credible and Corroborated FACTS.. Not fantasy allegations with no basis.. Again, your point fails..Advice and Consent is a LEGAL PROCESS.... You lose!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.
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.
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...
Advice and Consent requires FACTS not feeling or innuendo... Your Point is BS...Advice and Consent is based on FACTS... Credible and Corroborated FACTS.. Not fantasy allegations with no basis.. Again, your point fails..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.
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.Advice and Consent is based on FACTS... Credible and Corroborated FACTS.. Not fantasy allegations with no basis.. Again, your point fails..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.
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?
I fully agree with you, but, when one party makes accusations without the evidence, not to bring out flaws, but to destroy the person.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 think what they did was very likely sheer politics. They were hoping to stir up the MeToo vote for the upcoming elections.
But it's not a criminal trial. Due process and the usual rules of evidence don't apply. He's being considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court and questions of character are perfectly valid. If he's a sexist pig when he drinks, we might want to reconsider his appointment. If he still drinks.
