Do you support Mr. Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Sep 21, 2018.

?

Should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed by the Senate?

Poll closed Sep 21, 2019.
  1. Yes, and I'm a Democrat

    4.5%
  2. No, and I'm a Democrat

    18.2%
  3. Yes, and I'm a Republican

    9.1%
  4. No, and I'm a Republican

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Yes, and I'm neither Democrat nor Republican

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. No, and I'm neither Democrat nor Republican

    54.5%
  7. I don't want to respond to the poll. Just show me the results.

    13.6%
  1. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    The matter of a SCOTUS justice's being criminally tried and convicted hasn't ever come to the fore. The closest that any justice ever came was being impeached, but not by the Senate unseated.

    In theory, a justice who's convicted in a criminal court and who loses all his/her appeals would become a justice in absentia for the time s/he's incarcerated.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    You're only expected to answer based on the information you have available at the time you answer the question.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,932
    And now we have the third woman coming forward with an allegation.

    In any Trump personnel issue, somehow it always gets to the point where the argument becomes "all those women are LYING! They are lying sluts/ugly/drunk/confused/unethical." I wonder why we hear that argument so often?
     
    Xelor likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    What does what one may hear on the news have to do with it. Dr. Ford wrote a letter and Mr. Kavanaugh's background, as well as Dr. Ford's, has been disclosed to some degree. The origianls data sources for all that stuff is readily available on the Internet. (Google is your friend.) Just answer the question based on what the two individuals have said, done and have said about them.
     
  8. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    Watch the video found here: . (I promise you it's easy to watch, poignant and entertaining too.)
     
  9. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    873
    Mmmm.... Mrs. Montgomery...
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    .
    Then how do you square that with the fact that the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, and the Bill Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791? And if the Amendments are part of the original Constitution as you have asserted, why are the called "amendments". Why were they ratified on different dates, years apart? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "amendment"? As is your custom, you aren't making sense Iceaura. Your assertions aren't consistent with the facts or reason.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,133
    The voted ratifications in 1788 were in several States conditional, by Massachusetts among others, and the condition was that several modifications would be made immediately - before the second Presidential election. This was done, under the threat of several States withdrawing their conditional ratification. They were passed as "amendments", rather than modifications of the text as originally proposed, in part to avoid having to revote all the ratifications of all the States involved, and in part to avoid having to call a second Constitutional Convention.
    Regardless, we don't need any of this to reject an obviously unfit candidate for the Supreme Court. No matter what the Constitution is, what it is not is a pretext for enforcing one's authoritarian predilections - torture apologists and perjurers are disqualified.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2018
  12. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    I believe you are innocent until proven guilty. An allegation is not proof of a crime.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    You are obfuscating as is your custom. This is not that difficult. Contrary to your assertion the Constitution was ratified years before the Bill of Rights was ratified and that's why the Bill of Rights is a basket of amendments, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,133
    This is a confirmation hearing, not a trial. Kavanaugh is not fit for the Court by being innocent of crimes.
    Try reading your link, or at least the part I quoted above. It's not a complicated matter.
    Massachusetts, Virginia, and enough others to dissolve the government, ratified conditionally and conditionally only. The condition was modification - originally, modification of the text and another Convention; after compromise, a set of "amendments". Without them, no ratification.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2018
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,932
    Agreed. Kavanaugh is not on trial for a crime. This is a job interview, not a trial.

    If you interviewed someone for a job as a cashier, and you talked to his references, and they all said "we had to fire this guy; he kept stealing from us" - would you hire him? Even if he claimed that he was the most honest guy on the planet and would never, ever steal a thing?
     
  16. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,188
    That's bullshit. Glad the courts don't work that way.

    My answer is I don't have enough data to have an opinion. Having said that, the more data that surfaces - the worse it looks for Kavanaugh.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,105
    Xelor said:
    You're only expected to answer based on the information you have available at the time you answer the question

    The courts do work that way

    The jury does not have a option to say "we don't have enough information"

    They make a decision on the info they have

    They may have differences in interpretation of the evidence

    I don't have enough data

    is in itself a opinion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    He has a good work history. It's his character that is being challenged, with accusations that can't be proved.
     
  19. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    But if slinging mud can achieve a political end?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,932
    In my example, none of the accusations can be proven, either. He is adamant that he is 100% honest, and everyone who says otherwise is a lying hack. He has plenty of references from family and friends that say he is a wonderful guy. Would you hire him as a cashier?
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,932
    Like discrediting a victim who is trying to bring some insight into the nomination process?
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,367
    He has a record of lying under oath, of dodgy gambling habits... All of which was easily proven.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,133
    He has a public history of being willing to do very bad, wrong, dishonest things at work - to please his betters.
    And he has a large amount of withheld, secret work history, that he refuses to divulge in public.
    Then all the mud Kavanaugh slung as point man in the Arkansas Project and Ken Starr's media efforts will have been successful in advancing his Republican partisan career.

    Then all the mud slung and being slung at all of Kavanaugh's dozens of accusers,

    of documented perjury, of documented partisan thuggery, of documented prison torture promotion, of documented poor and inconsistent legal decision making, of alleged sexual assault over a period of years, of documented and alleged financial irregularities,

    of documented and ongoing concealment of documents and evidence,

    and to cap it off, the cherry on top of this shit sundae: of public and televised sycophancy, of displaying a willingness to kiss ass and flatter the powerful with even the most ridiculous and obvious lies to obtain promotion and favor among the rich and powerful - right out on TV in front of God and his family, his friends and his children,

    will have done its job. Because there's no way in hell or even America this guy makes the Supreme Court otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018

Share This Page