Kavanaugh, drunk, party boy and confirmed liar under oath for the SC

[Leo Lyons]

It just sunk in - he's Catholic. The same people who had the priests will be priests attitude for centuries. What happens in Church stays in Church. Sweep it under.

And she was a "devout Catholic".
Next.

[billy.pilgrim]

Ol Bret is a true Trumper

Get em drunk and rape em.

[Leo Lyons]

Ol Bret is a true Trumper. Get em drunk and rape em.

Get em drunk and allegedly rape em.

[billy.pilgrim]

Ol Bret is a true Trumper. Get em drunk and rape em.

Get em drunk and allegedly rape em.

The only motive, for dumbass or the senate committee refusing to put any witness under oath, is that they know or are scared of knowing. The prep school boy is guilty.

[Leo Lyons]

The prep school boy is guilty.

Hmmm, I thought the 14th. Amendment states---wait, here it is:
"In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.”

Note the "aliens included".

[Vrede too]

The only motive, for dumbass or the senate committee refusing to put any witness under oath or requesting an expanded FBI background check, is that they know or are scared of knowing. The prep school boy is guilty.

[billy.pilgrim]

The only motive, for dumbass or the senate committee refusing to put any witness under oath or requesting an expanded FBI background check, is that they know or are scared of knowing. The prep school boy is guilty.

Yep, and also that any honest open minded law type person would demand an investigation.

[O Really]

The prep school boy is guilty.

Hmmm, I thought the 14th. Amendment states---wait, here it is:
"In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.”

Note the "aliens included".

Hmmmm,that applies to criminal process. This is a job interview, and that's different.

[Vrede too]

Hmmmm,that applies to criminal process. This is a job interview, and that's different.

Plus, the 14th Amendment doesn't state that at all. In fact:

... the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship.

The 14th, as anyone that knows anything about US slavery and race already knows, merely extends those rights already enjoyed by white males like Kavanaugh to the males from other races.

[O Really]

The "innocent until proven guilty" only means that it is the state's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove innocence. This was a legal innovation at the time, when it was common for a defendant to bear the burden of proving innocence. But it only has to do with burden of proof, not actual "presumption" of innocence. The prosecutor does not believe the defendant to be innocent or s/he wouldn't bring charges or go to trial. The prosecutor is convinced the defendant is guilty, and further believes s/he can convince the jury also.

Further, the standard in a criminal case is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in a civil case "preponderance of evidence." But as I said, Kavenaugh is not under criminal charge - he's interviewing for a job, a lifetime job to be paid by the public. Just being a jerk could be grounds to dump him. Insisting on courtroom level "proof" is just Republicans trying to distract to keep their court-packing plan on track.

[Leo Lyons]

The only motive, for dumbass or the senate committee refusing to put any witness under oath or requesting an expanded FBI background check, is that they know or are scared of knowing. The prep school boy is guilty.

Yep, and also that any honest open minded law type person would demand an investigation.

I've not said anything to the contrary. Because of his party affiliation, his past bench decisions, and who he associates with; he is guilty whether there's an an investigation or not. If it's determined he's lied, then the matter should be dealt with; but again, there's that statute of limitations thingy that could possibly be a stumbling block---surely, the woman's attorney and the Dems are keenly aware of that, therefore, that makes me think even more that the whole mess is a smear campaign designed to derail or prolong the nomination. Even if he's guilty of the accusations, there is no legal precedent to prosecute him.

[O Really]

The only motive, for dumbass or the senate committee refusing to put any witness under oath or requesting an expanded FBI background check, is that they know or are scared of knowing. The prep school boy is guilty.

Yep, and also that any honest open minded law type person would demand an investigation.

I've not said anything to the contrary. Because of his party affiliation, his past bench decisions, and who he associates with; he is guilty whether there's an an investigation or not. If it's determined he's lied, then the matter should be dealt with; but again, there's that statute of limitations thingy that could possibly be a stumbling block---surely, the woman's attorney and the Dems are keenly aware of that, therefore, that makes me think even more that the whole mess is a smear campaign designed to derail or prolong the nomination. Even if he's guilty of the accusations, there is no legal precedent to prosecute him.

His past bench decisions, verbal and written statements, and who he associates with are all excellent reasons to reject him.

But why do you keep bringing up prosecution? Is a felony criminal record the only reason you'd have to reject a potential Supreme Court Justice? That's a pretty low bar.

[Leo Lyons]

Hmmmm,that applies to criminal process. This is a job interview, and that's different.
I suppose, then, that innocent until proven guilty is out the question then?

Plus, the 14th Amendment doesn't state that at all. In fact:

... the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship.

The 14th, as anyone that knows anything about US slavery and race already knows, merely extends those rights already enjoyed by white males like Kavanaugh to the males from other races.
Different information sources; that's all. What I posted is a copy & paste. It still means that the Constitution (and The Bill of Rights) state the presumption of innocence until proven guilty...regardless of race or citizenship.

The only difference, here in this case, in the job interview and actual criminal proceedings, is the determination of guilt. Even if it's found he lied, he could still be confirmed, much to the chagrin of the Dems who's trying every way in hell to derail the nomination, because there has not been any legal proceeding against him. (boy! wouldn't that piss off the Dems! )

[O Really]

. Even if it's found he lied, he could still be confirmed, ...

[/quote]
But why would anyone do that?
Actually, having a criminal background isn't disqualifying, and you don't even have to have a law degree.

[Leo Lyons]

His past bench decisions, verbal and written statements,
Are in the past. Over and done with. They pleased some, pissed off others. It's politics. This nomination circus? It's politics.

and who he associates with are all excellent reasons to reject him.
Who he associates with are members of his political party which makes him an opponent and are excellent reasons to reject him.
It's politics

But why do you keep bringing up prosecution?
I mention it because there are no charges against him, it's a he-said-she said circus.

Is a felony criminal record the only reason you'd have to reject a potential Supreme Court Justice? That's a pretty low bar.
Yes. What a candidate did as a teen or post-teen is water under the bridge if he/she was not charged; it's not a sign that behavior is considered to be a part of being a justice, nor is there a remote chance it will happen again. That is no lower bar than the Kennedy incident that seemed to got swept under the Democratic rug. It's politics.

[Leo Lyons]

Even if it's found he lied, he could still be confirmed, ...

But why would anyone do that?
It's politics

Actually, having a criminal background isn't disqualifying, and you don't even have to have a law degree.
Not disqualifying maybe, but I think it would depend on the opinions of the nominating committee. Not being a pol, I can't elaborate.

[Vrede too]

His past bench decisions, verbal and written statements, and who he associates with are all excellent reasons to reject him.

Yep, I want full investigation of the sex assault claims and careful, honest deliberation, but he's a rotten, extremist nominee regardless. So, I'm not hung up on the new allegations, though they are looking more and more like they're true.

But why do you keep bringing up prosecution? Is a felony criminal record the only reason you'd have to reject a potential Supreme Court Justice? That's a pretty low bar.

It's funny, Leo Lyons repeatedly accuses us of rushes to judgement, but he's the one that spews stupidity and is incapable of looking things up before doing so. First, as you say confirmations and prosecutions are COMPLETELY different things. Then, he even screws up the prosecution end of things:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ation.html

... Maryland has no statute of limitations for any felony sex crime, meaning charges could be brought today....

I know that it's not a surprise for a LEO to be so ignorant of the law, but Leo Lyons must set some sort of record. Even more stunning is that he never learns despite getting routinely gets owned on facts and logic here.

[Leo Lyons]

... Maryland has no statute of limitations for any felony sex crime, meaning charges could be brought today....
Uhhh...Maryland? federal law?

I know that it's not a surprise for a LEO to be so ignorant of the law, but Leo Lyons must set some sort of record. Even more stunning is that he never learns despite getting routinely gets owned on facts and logic here.
Awww. Gee, if you weren't so dadgum smart, I might could compete with you; not that that's doing much. I could try to be an asshole too, but no one can compete with you; you're the tops! :thumbsup:
Now, you want some cheese with your whine?
Let me quote you here:
"whining about me"
"attacking me"
Feel better now?

[Vrede too]

Ummm, 2 of the 3 4 (so far) accusers allege that Kavanaugh's crimes occurred in MD. The feds usually don't prosecute sex crimes unless they occur in DC or on federal property, or involve cross state or international border crimes like human trafficking.

Since you mention it, though, and since the latest alleged sexual assault occurred in D.C., the feds also DON'T have a statute of limitations for sex crimes that might apply to Kavanaugh:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
Page 24, 18 U.S.C. ch.109A:
18 U.S.C. § 2241 (aggravated sexual abuse)
18 U.S.C. § 2242 (sexual abuse)
18 U.S.C. § 2244 (abusive sexual contact)

You fail the law, again.

Irrelevant whining ignored.

[Vrede too]

Trump Supporter Tells Daughters Groping 'Is No Big Deal' Live On MSNBC

... The unidentified woman made a point of telling her two teen daughters this during a live interview Tuesday on MSNBC.

“Groping a woman? At 18?” she said, before asking her daughters, “I mean, how many guys do you know who think that’s no big deal?”

After the two girls nodded in agreement, the mother reiterated, “It’s not a big deal.”

The woman insisted that even if the assault allegations against Kavanaugh are true, it “doesn’t take away from his character and his job to do what he needs to do as a Supreme Court nominee.”

She added, “If he was pro-abortion, the liberals wouldn’t be fighting this hard.”

Actually, Dems dump their sexual abusers.

As you might have predicted, many Twitter users didn’t agree with her beliefs about groping.

"My mom went on television and said it was no big deal," is a future #whyididntreport moment. I'm not making light of it -- that's really what it is. So sad to see. The message they are being taught.

So her daughters bodies are available to be touched whenever some man feels like it? What about what her daughters want?

“Groping” doesn’t even begin to describe what he’s been accused of. Regardless, her low expectations of 18-year-old males’ behavior is extremely disturbing.

Let’s hope that woman also isn’t raising a son who’ll go on to grope a new generation of women & let’s hope her daughters learn enough elsewhere to not continue perpetuating this toxicity