The Moral Imperative to Confirm Kavanaugh

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

^^^^ If you look all this up you will see that the FIRST time The Senate EVER held Confirmation Hearings for a Judicial Nominee was in 1916, pre-1916 and from the beginning of The United States Constitution NO Confirmation Hearings on ANY Judicial Nominee was EVER held and also they do not even have to have a Senate vote if they do not want to.

^^^^ Article II, Section 2 of The United States Constitution states that the President shall nominate and then in that list it says Judges of The Supreme Court and ALL it states about The Senates role is that they Advise and Consent NOTHING about they HAVE to hold Confirmation Hearings and according to Jonathan Adler he suggests that they do NOT even need to have a Senate vote on these Judges who get nominated, as I already comment The Senate FIRST held Confirmation Hearings on a Judicial Nominee in 1916 and NEVER before then so to apply The United States Constitution as it was INTENDED, the President nominates, the Senate provides advice and consent which includes NO Confirmation Hearings because Constitutionally they do NOT have to have them so if a Party has a MAJORITY in The Senate that MAJORITY can just tell the President that Yes they agree to his nominee and then the President makes the appointment himself of his nominee who then is automatically sworn in.

Here's the full Legal paper the link to:

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2980&context=faculty_publications

 

[g5000]

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.

If found guilty, Kavanaugh will not be allowed to be a Supreme Court judge. That's a sentence, yes. Worse than having your license revoked for drunk driving.

If anyone is caught lying, they are also sentenced for perjury.

Oops, shit all over you.

 

[g5000]

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.

Ah. So you believe they should have voted immediately to confirm Neil Gorsuch.

 

[BlackFlag]

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.

Who’s on the jury and what punitive measures will they deal out to Kavanaugh if they convict him of rape? Oops shitting the bed.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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!!!

 

[BlackFlag]

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.

If found guilty, Kavanaugh will not be allowed to be a Supreme Court judge. That's a sentence, yes. Worse than having your license revoked for drunk driving.

If anyone is caught lying, they are also sentenced for perjury.

Oops, shit all over you.

Not getting a job is your punishment for attempted rape? How lenient.

 

[Siete]

so how many judges did obama appoint in his first term ?

 

[Windparadox]

`
That's a laugh; "moral imperative". Neither party has an ounce of moral imperative. What's at focus here is the integrity of the Supreme Court. We have both a totally immoral congress, president and administration, lacking even a shred of human decency. As I see it, a supreme court nominee should be impeccable and lets face it, since Clarence Thomas (maybe even before), the system of gaining one has absolutely degenerated to a partisan cesspool. It's going to be up to the voters to change this and considering the sorry state politics today, it's going to be an uphill battle.

 

[MarcATL]

View attachment 218857

That's a good one Murked.

I give you 1 star for a funny.

#LOLGOP #RepublicanTearsAreStillTasty

 

[busybee01]

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.

She does not believe that someone who did what was done to her should be on the Supreme Court. I agree and most Americans agree with me not you. This is not a court of law so there is no presumption of innocence. Moral character is relevant and necessary as he could be ruling on the very things he is accused of.

 

[busybee01]

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.

They have not. Prof Ford is the one who made the accusation and she seems to be a credible witness to me.

 

[Siete]

Trumpdrones believe everyone is as dishonest as they are.

ergo;

Ford is a lying pos.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trumpdrones believe everyone is as dishonest as they are.

ergo;

Ford is a lying pos.

You know that I am far, far from a fan of Trump, that has been made very clear by me on this forum.

But Ford has the burden of proof and she has failed totally. You complain about people that think Ford is a lying POS, yet you have no issue believing that Kavanaugh is. You are no better than that you rant against.

If this were you, would you want your life ruined by the word of a single person from 35 or 36 or who knows how long ago?

Nothing she has put forth has been credible or supportable.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

They have not. Prof Ford is the one who made the accusation and she seems to be a credible witness to me.

Why? What makes her credible to you? Is if the fact that she cannot remember what year it was or what house it was?

is it the fact she was cool with her letter to her representative was held onto for more than a month for political reasons?

Or is it just because she is from the right party?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

View attachment 218857

That's a good one Murked.

I give you 1 star for a funny.

#LOLGOP #RepublicanTearsAreStillTasty

I do what I can

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Exactly.

The dishonest right wants to propagate the lie that Kavanaugh is not being afforded ‘due process,’ where that right only comes into play when someone is subject to criminal charges and prosecution – which is not the case concerning the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

 

[oreo]

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.

Yes usually the VICTIM has an agenda-to stop the "PERP"- You Trump tards say some of the dumbest things.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If there’s any ‘moral imperative’ it would be for the Senate to vote not to confirm.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Based on politics, there's a moral imperative to ignore a woman who claims to have been raped?

I don't think 'moral' means what you think it means. As what you're demanding is void of morality.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes usually the VICTIM has an agenda-to stop the "PERP"- You Trump tards say some of the dumbest things.

This is a window into their reasoning, to be sure.

The claims precede the confirmation process by about half a decade. Eliminating politics as the motive for the claims. So even by the internal logic of this moral dumpster fire of an argument, she shouldn't be ignored.