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.
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..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?
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.
Innocent until proven guilty. What con't you understand about that?
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?
Republicans are running on: Rape & sexual assault os OK if there are no witnesses.Democrat Party's 2018 platform is based entirely on "Guilt by accusation".
I kinda was hoping for a poster with opposing views, seems they don't want to touch this thread. oh darn
--------------------------------------- i don't think so , i think that rape and sex assault should be reported in timely fashion to proper authorities and whatever evidence should be gathered in a timely fashion RDave .Republicans are running on: Rape & sexual assault os OK if there are no witnesses.Democrat Party's 2018 platform is based entirely on "Guilt by accusation".
Lying under oath is permissible if you are a Republican.
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..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?
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.
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..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 am sure you fucking assholes believe that. But I have news. You moronic ignorant fuck Trumpettes don't represent America at all. You worship a POS orange lying fuck who has been stealing AmericabBlind for over decade & you love him for it.Is it Time to Change the Rule of Law in America?
No, it just time to get rid of Demorats,
View attachment 220917
I kinda was hoping for a poster with opposing views, seems they don't want to touch this thread. oh darn
I've touched this thread & shown just how big an asshole you are.
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'm MeisterWe 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) Who the fuck are you?
B) Only if it gives citizens more rights and fixes the "win at any cost" thing for lawyers. Oh yeah, and stop police from lying.
I'm MeisterWe 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) Who the fuck are you?
B) Only if it gives citizens more rights and fixes the "win at any cost" thing for lawyers. Oh yeah, and stop police from lying.
I just hang out in the corner and observe. Throw a jab here and take a jab there.I'm MeisterWe 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) Who the fuck are you?
B) Only if it gives citizens more rights and fixes the "win at any cost" thing for lawyers. Oh yeah, and stop police from lying.
How do you have so many posts, and I can't recall a single one of them?
Wow! I just realized I have ..more than I thought.
Which rapist is he supporting?Okay, rape supporteruh-huh, run with that one.A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****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?
Liar.No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end, rape supporter.Good ... Then your a fucking rapist that should never be believed... now get the fuck out.. Just applying your own standard to YOU!A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****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?
You’re getting emotional.No credible witnesses or history of blackouts and rape here on my end, rape supporter.Good ... Then your a fucking rapist that should never be believed... now get the fuck out.. Just applying your own standard to YOU!A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****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?
