Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All I'm hearing is the ends justify the means for both sides. I generally side with the Democrats because I like their world view better but by no means do I agree with them all the time. Anyone trying to bring up legality, precedent or any other reason to justify his or her side is just being hypocritical. If the tables were turned, the two parties have no problems at all with switching to the opposing strategy.
Also I find this entire presumption of innocence argument quite strange. Noone is arguing for Kavanaugh to go to jail. They are arguing for him not to get the job. In the professional world, people are not hired for unexplained gaps in their resume, social media posts and other more trivial things. There is no presumption of innocence play there either.
All I'm hearing is the ends justify the means for both sides. I generally side with the Democrats because I like their world view better but by no means do I agree with them all the time. Anyone trying to bring up legality, precedent or any other reason to justify his or her side is just being hypocritical. If the tables were turned, the two parties have no problems at all with switching to the opposing strategy.
Also I find this entire presumption of innocence argument quite strange. Noone is arguing for Kavanaugh to go to jail. They are arguing for him not to get the job. In the professional world, people are not hired for unexplained gaps in their resume, social media posts and other more trivial things. There is no presumption of innocence play there either.
In any event, Presumption of innocence is a legal jury standard. It does not apply outside the court room. Its got nothing to do with a non-court hearing.
If you come home and ask which of your kids spilled the cheerios all over the floor and one tells you he did it, pointing, while they are both standing there I guess half the people here would scream "presumption of innocence"
Like the presumption of innocence all the same people here gave Hilary Clinton in the Benghazi fiasco no doubt.
Its a term thrown around by people who do not even know what it means.
All I'm hearing is the ends justify the means for both sides. I generally side with the Democrats because I like their world view better but by no means do I agree with them all the time. Anyone trying to bring up legality, precedent or any other reason to justify his or her side is just being hypocritical. If the tables were turned, the two parties have no problems at all with switching to the opposing strategy.
Also I find this entire presumption of innocence argument quite strange. Noone is arguing for Kavanaugh to go to jail. They are arguing for him not to get the job. In the professional world, people are not hired for unexplained gaps in their resume, social media posts and other more trivial things. There is no presumption of innocence play there either.
Really?
I don't recall that Republicans sat on a case for months and brought in the uncorroborated case in the last minute trying to derail the confirmation of the Wise Latina and Kagan.
I don't recall that Republicans sat on a case for months and brought in the uncorroborated case in the last minute trying to derail a confirmation.
You're right, they just refused to proceed period with Garland. That would be a delay ad infinitum. The most successful derailing in history.
And what do you mean uncorroborated?
Are we living in Sharia law society where a woman's rape or sexual assault allegation needs corroboration by 4male witnesses?
All I'm hearing is the ends justify the means for both sides. I generally side with the Democrats because I like their world view better but by no means do I agree with them all the time. Anyone trying to bring up legality, precedent or any other reason to justify his or her side is just being hypocritical. If the tables were turned, the two parties have no problems at all with switching to the opposing strategy.
Also I find this entire presumption of innocence argument quite strange. Noone is arguing for Kavanaugh to go to jail. They are arguing for him not to get the job. In the professional world, people are not hired for unexplained gaps in their resume, social media posts and other more trivial things. There is no presumption of innocence play there either.
You might want to break out that high school civics book.
We are talking about the Judicial Branch (SCOTUS) and the Legislative (Congress). The Presumption of Innocence is a pillar of both institutions.
I find it strange that you find it strange. And just a little bit scary.
It's not so much the allegations, it's about him possibly lying. He had 3 maybe 4 talking points today and he didn't deviate from them. And he didn't answer many of the questions. He was belligerent and obviously not bipartisan. He showed his true colors when he attacked democrats for conspiring against him along with the Clintons. I wonder who schooled him on this narrative I don't want someone like this to be on our highest court because he will bring a black cloud to it. And honestly, I didn't believe him
So you can't call out partisan witchhunts as such without being labelled a partisan by the people conducting the witchhunt.
The "narrative" is simply the truth.
The reason is the left is threatened by their reign of judicial terror and activism coming to an end.
But it must. It has to. We cannot have activist judges in this nation. It does not work.
You're right, they just refused to proceed period with Garland. That would be a delay ad infinitum. The most successful derailing in history.
And what do you mean uncorroborated?
Are we living in Sharia law society where a woman's rape of sexual assault allegation needs corroboration by 5, male, witnesses?
We are not living in a Sharia law society. Our society requires the presumption of innocence for everybody, Democraps included.
The burden of the proof is on the accuser not the accused.
I wonder what these same people would think if they were the ones being accused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't want someone like this to be on our highest court because he will bring a black cloud to it. And honestly, I didn't believe him