The Moral Imperative to Confirm Kavanaugh

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
19,618
8,397
940
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.

This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.

The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
 
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.
 
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.

Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.

And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .
 
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.

This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.

The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.

I was reading that there is nothing in the United States Constitution that says The Senate even HAS to have ANY Confirmation Hearings on nominees, that they can get the nominee and just IMMEDIATELY have the vote to Confirm them. So after the Brett Kavanaugh Witch Hunt Character Smear Job, I would suggest that the Republicans in future do NOT have ANY Confirmation Hearings on ANY nominee to ANYTHING and that they just IMMEDIATELY have the vote to Confirm them.

Also the Brett Kavanaugh situation is EXACTLY WHY The Donald instead should have chosen Amy Coney Barrett for the USSC.
 
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.

Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.

And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .


Can you tell the difference between a political rally and a Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Hearing?

Clearly, not.
 
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.

This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.

The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.

I was reading that there is nothing in the United States Constitution that says The Senate even HAS to have ANY Confirmation Hearings on nominees, that they can get the nominee and just IMMEDIATELY have the vote to Confirm them. So after the Brett Kavanaugh Witch Hunt Character Smear Job, I would suggest that the Republicans in future do NOT have ANY Confirmation Hearings on ANY nominee to ANYTHING and that they just IMMEDIATELY have the vote to Confirm them.
Well we all know your stance on fascism
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.

Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.

And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .
Thank you!

The sweet irony of it all is, one of the main guys who, during the campaign, whipped a mob of Republican zealots into a frenzy chanting "LOCK HER UP! LOCK. HER. UP!!!" is now doing time.

#RepublicanTearsAreTASTY
 
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.

Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.

And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .


Can you tell the difference between a political rally and a Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Hearing?

Clearly, not.

You brought up “innocent until proven guilty”. Which is a criminal court standard .

Not a confirmation standard.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
We cannot reward the Democrats for their unconstitutional behavior in encouraging guilt before innocence through character assassination.

Democrats have also demeaned any woman who was truly raped and abused because that woman will now be equated to party girls with ulterior motives.
 
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.

Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.

And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .


Can you tell the difference between a political rally and a Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Hearing?

Clearly, not.

You brought up “innocent until proven guilty”. Which is a criminal court standard .

Not a confirmation standard.

It should be. Do you recommend denying confirmation to a person based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation?
 
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.

This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.

The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.

How do you prove an attempted rape?
Have a camera in the room?
You can't.
It would help if they interviewed the other person in the room.
Moral imperative?
Pres who dragged his wife by the hair before raping her?
Screwing and paying off a pro when his wife was pregnant?
5 deferments?
Vietnam sacrifice not to have got a STD?
4 bankruptcies?
Fined and closed down trump u?
5000 lies in 2 years?
 
Republicans have absolutely NO room to speak about Morality, morals, or anything similar ever again.

Not after electing the most immoral, corrupt, lying, deceitful, philandering SOB this side of the Western Hemisphere.

Close this thread...NOW!!!
 
We cannot reward the Democrats for their unconstitutional behavior in encouraging guilt before innocence through character assassination.

Democrats have also demeaned any woman who was truly raped and abused because that woman will now be equated to party girls with ulterior motives.

How come the last judge had non of these problems?
How do you prove a rape?
Camera in the room?
I'm not sure I want a supreme who didn't have sex until he was 30.
We are going to have a Supreme Court wher 1/3 of the guys have been accused of sex attacks
 
His accuser has admitted that her purpose in publicizing her allegations was to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. This motive, along with the obviously orchestrated release of selected documents designed to delay and undermine the Senate confirmation process, creates the appearance and inescapable presumption that these allegations have not been made in good faith. As a result, they do not meet the most minimal standards of proof or credibility.

This alone should have required the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore these historical allegations, which were purposefully not submitted to it until after it had completed its hearings. The current hearings allowing Dr. Ford to further publicize her claims does not change this conclusion.

The moral imperative which now presents itself is the concept of fairness, which is often exemplified by the presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on every Senator to vote according to an assessment of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and not on irrelevant and unproven allegations.
You have constructed a very fine collection of logical fallacies.

There is no doubt the Republicans undermined the Senate confirmation process when they refused to even give Neil Gorsuch a hearing (forget about a vote on his nomination), and when they changed the Senate rules so they could exercise the nuclear option to get their own man through.

There is no doubt the Democrats, who have been forced into a position of extreme weakness by the Republican shenanigans, had no choice but to use all their political prowess to undermine the Republican ramrodding however they could.

It's a real shit show.

The only true way to determine the merit of the accusations of these several women is by opening an FBI investigation. The only reason one would not do so is if one is afraid the accusations might have merit.

I can understand why a well known pussy grabber would not be a big fan of investigating claims of sexual assault, but what excuse do the male-only Republican committee members have?
 
Well we all know your stance on fascism

Well we all know your stance on the presumption of innocence
Is this a legal trial? Oops shit on your face.
People are testifying under oath. There is jeopardy attached to their testimony if they lie.

Ooops. Shit on your face.

ford.jpg
 
Indeed. We have a moral imperative to preserve the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and to oppose that of having to Prove One's Innocent to the Outrage Mob.

Tell me if this sounds familiar? “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!!”. Righties are such hypocrites.

And Kav ain’t up on criminal charges . He’s up for a job .


Can you tell the difference between a political rally and a Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Hearing?

Clearly, not.

You brought up “innocent until proven guilty”. Which is a criminal court standard .

Not a confirmation standard.

It should be. Do you recommend denying confirmation to a person based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation?

Hard to substantiate if you won't interview the other person in the room.
Omg "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Indoctrination only second to religion, great socialist benefits"
Hilarious, 85 year old senators judging sex and probably haven't got it up in 30 years
 
Well we all know your stance on fascism

Well we all know your stance on the presumption of innocence
Is this a legal trial? Oops shit on your face.
People are testifying under oath. There is jeopardy attached to their testimony if they lie.

Ooops. Shit on your face.
So if whoever the judge or jury is decides in favor of Ford, Kavanaugh will be handed a sentence for trying to rape her? Oops, shit all over you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top