Kavanaugh Confirmation

#4,426
#4,426
volinbham said:
the presumption of innocence as a core principle is not limited to trials nor is it non-applicable in a job interview
Click to expand...

He knows that , I can’t bekieve he actually posted that knowing it would get jumped on right away . I mean even the precedings are called a “ Hearing “
 
#4,428
#4,428
volinbham said:
the presumption of innocence as a core principle is not limited to trials nor is it non-applicable in a job interview
Click to expand...

If you're looking at a candidate and you Google his name and he allegedly groped someone you're well within your rights to not hire him for that reason.
 
#4,429
#4,429
volinbham said:
the presumption of innocence as a core principle is not limited to trials nor is it non-applicable in a job interview
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The value of being able to walk away saying "we'll never know if he was guilty" is worth more than trying to prove that he is and failing.
 
#4,430
#4,430
When you guys say "prove it" you need to understand the measure of that. In a criminal case, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence: based on the totality of the evidence, is it more likely true than not.

This is much more akin to the civil standard. If you are a Senator and you listen to both and based on that you think more likely than not she's telling the truth, you should vote not to confirm. If its 505-50 or you believe him, you vote to confirm.

Not that difficult.

Likening this to a trial is a bad idea for the GOP. The reason is that in a trial BOTH sides have the power to subpoena witnesses and question them. The GOP here however is blocking the Dems from doing that. So every time a GOPer invokes a trial paradigm for this hearing, they strain credibility for the GOP.
 
#4,434
#4,434
lawgator1 said:
When you guys say "prove it" you need to understand the measure of that. In a criminal case, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence: based on the totality of the evidence, is it more likely true than not.

This is much more akin to the civil standard. If you are a Senator and you listen to both and based on that you think more likely than not she's telling the truth, you should vote not to confirm. If its 505-50 or you believe him, you vote to confirm.

Not that difficult.

Likening this to a trial is a bad idea for the GOP. The reason is that in a trial BOTH sides have the power to subpoena witnesses and question them. The GOP here however is blocking the Dems from doing that. So every time a GOPer invokes a trial paradigm for this hearing, they strain credibility for the GOP.
Click to expand...

But even the civil standard is still a trial. Technically this is a hearing so when EL and others say it's just a job interview that's wrong as well.

The GOP isn't blocking the Dems from doing any investigation though. The Dems calling for an investigation but refusing to participate in any investigation is BS as well.

Bottomline - I agree it's preponderance of evidence standard and she doesn't have to prove anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#4,435
#4,435
lawgator1 said:
When you guys say "prove it" you need to understand the measure of that. In a criminal case, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence: based on the totality of the evidence, is it more likely true than not.

This is much more akin to the civil standard. If you are a Senator and you listen to both and based on that you think more likely than not she's telling the truth, you should vote not to confirm. If its 505-50 or you believe him, you vote to confirm.

Not that difficult.

Likening this to a trial is a bad idea for the GOP. The reason is that in a trial BOTH sides have the power to subpoena witnesses and question them. The GOP here however is blocking the Dems from doing that. So every time a GOPer invokes a trial paradigm for this hearing, they strain credibility for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on your back up for the "under oath" statement about Ford.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#4,436
#4,436
lawgator1 said:
When you guys say "prove it" you need to understand the measure of that. In a criminal case, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence: based on the totality of the evidence, is it more likely true than not.

This is much more akin to the civil standard. If you are a Senator and you listen to both and based on that you think more likely than not she's telling the truth, you should vote not to confirm. If its 505-50 or you believe him, you vote to confirm.

Not that difficult.

Likening this to a trial is a bad idea for the GOP. The reason is that in a trial BOTH sides have the power to subpoena witnesses and question them. The GOP here however is blocking the Dems from doing that. So every time a GOPer invokes a trial paradigm for this hearing, they strain credibility for the GOP.
Click to expand...
Hang on. I believe it was the Dims that pushed initially for the trial format. And you damn well know the reason for the outside counsel. Stop being disingenuous. It’s optics in both counts. The GOP doesn’t want a bunch of 50+ year old white guys interviewing Ford. The moonbats desperately want that image. Her testimony becomes irrelevant. She was bullied by a bunch of misogynistic white guys regardless of what she says. Put a female experienced counsel in that position and that optic is totally disarmed. Call it what it is.
 
#4,438
#4,438
lawgator1 said:
When you guys say "prove it" you need to understand the measure of that. In a criminal case, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence: based on the totality of the evidence, is it more likely true than not.

This is much more akin to the civil standard. If you are a Senator and you listen to both and based on that you think more likely than not she's telling the truth, you should vote not to confirm. If its 505-50 or you believe him, you vote to confirm.

Not that difficult.

Likening this to a trial is a bad idea for the GOP. The reason is that in a trial BOTH sides have the power to subpoena witnesses and question them. The GOP here however is blocking the Dems from doing that. So every time a GOPer invokes a trial paradigm for this hearing, they strain credibility for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Fair point...... but due process and presumption of innocence are standards that extend far beyond a civil or criminal courtroom.
 
#4,443
#4,443
NorthDallas40 said:
Hang on. I believe it was the Dims that pushed initially for the trial format. And you damn well know the reason for the outside counsel. Stop being disingenuous. It’s optics in both counts. The GOP doesn’t want a bunch of 50+ year old white guys interviewing Ford. The moonbats desperately want that image. Her testimony becomes irrelevant. She was bullied by a bunch of misogynistic white guys regardless of what she says. Put a female experienced counsel in that position and that optic is totally disarmed. Call it what it is.
Click to expand...

That's part of it. The other reason is to keep the likes of Pocahontas and Spartacus from making a mockery of the questioning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#4,444
#4,444
Septic said:
Depends on who you ask I suppose. Irrespective, the vag's were weaponized.
Click to expand...

Still has a distinct amount of perspective and hypocrisy. One gets believed no matter what, the others were political stunts.

Most curious, no?
 
#4,446
#4,446
We need women in Florida,Tennessee,West Va,Montana,Texas to come out and accuse those dem men of sexual harassment or rape so we can make sure the Rs keep the Senate. I will donate to their gofundme if they do.
 
#4,449
#4,449
volfanjustin said:
We need women in Florida,Tennessee,West Va,Montana,Texas to come out and accuse those dem men of sexual harassment or rape so we can make sure the Rs keep the Senate. I will donate to their gofundme if they do.
Click to expand...
Right. And watch how many of these "we believe survivors" type lunatics immediately accuse the women of being lying wh@@es who are doing it for politics. Democrats and practitioners of the dumb leftist arts are the ultimate hypocrites in modern society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#4,450
#4,450
lawgator1 said:
When you guys say "prove it" you need to understand the measure of that. In a criminal case, the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence: based on the totality of the evidence, is it more likely true than not.

This is much more akin to the civil standard. If you are a Senator and you listen to both and based on that you think more likely than not she's telling the truth, you should vote not to confirm. If its 505-50 or you believe him, you vote to confirm.

Not that difficult.

Likening this to a trial is a bad idea for the GOP. The reason is that in a trial BOTH sides have the power to subpoena witnesses and question them. The GOP here however is blocking the Dems from doing that. So every time a GOPer invokes a trial paradigm for this hearing, they strain credibility for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Nah , they just aren’t going to let the minority take over and run the preceddings .
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top