No comments on Kavanaugh???

[Philip]

Ed: Without that context - when we're talking about the court of popular opinion - then the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence runs smack into the inalienable of every individual to form their own opinion. It seems to me that the former is effectively nullified by the latter.

Sure, in the court of public opinion, people are entitled to believe whatever they'd like. But what we are talking about (or SHOULD be) is how people should look at evidence, and should base their opinions upon observable things - and not bypass such an important approach because known facts or inconsistencies are highly inconvenient and in conflict with their feelings and emotions. ONLY weighing facts and evidences should happen in courts, with every juror, AND with every person who cares about the truth of things. And I see vast numbers of people talking against Kavanaugh and agreeing with the accusations against him, yet without addressing the lack of facts and evidences to support such, or the many problems of these unsupported accusations - which tells me that facts are inconvenient to people who only want some end result. Don't confuse free speech with our rights under the law.

[PaulSacramento]

Court of Public Opinion? you mean like slander? Hate speech?
Hmmm...
I am all for free speech but as we know it is protected ONLY if it does NOT infringe on the human /inalienable rights of others.
And when allegations that have NOT been proven can cost someone their livelihood, their reputation and even worse, then we need to ALWAYS remember that allegations without facts are hearsay and that one of our inalienable human rights IS the presumption of innocence until PROVEN ( not accused or alleged) guilty.

[PaulSacramento]

In reality this has nothing to do with Kavanugh and everything to do with this whole "any accused of sexual misconduct must be quilty" BS that is going around.
No matter the crime, one MUST be innocent until proven guilty in the face of ONLY allegations.

I don't know if Kavanaugh did what he is accused of and guess what? no one else here knows that too.
Do I find Ford credible? I don't know. She certainly seems to believe her story ( as Kavanaugh seems to believe his) but as a person that has dealt with sex crimes in his family and outside of it, her story is kind of strange and erractic BUT that does NOT mean it is not true.
That said, allegations and ONLY allegations are NOT enough to remove a person's presumption of innocence.

[RickD]

This is quite pathetic. Even if he's innocent, don't confirm him?

And this jackass plans on running for president in 2020?

[PaulSacramento]

This is quite pathetic. Even if he's innocent, don't confirm him?

And this jackass plans on running for president in 2020?

According to some, the court of public opinion is the only one the matters.

[Kurieuo]

It doesn't surpise me that Kav raped, he is white and a male, and to top it off elected by a facist, chauvinistic president who taps into a popularist masculinity narritive to garner support. Rape culture has gotten so bad today that it has extended to the dog world i.e., dogs increasingly think they can hump any female they like. A study was recently done on it, look it up.

[edwardmurphy]

According to some, the court of public opinion is the only one the matters.

You still haven't told me how any of this is supposed to work. Whatever.

It seems like what you want is for me to admit that everyone is treating Kavanaugh very unfairly and they should give him the benefit of the doubt, but you don't want to say "be nice to my guy" because that would seem like partisan pleading, so you're phrasing it as a universal and an unalienable right. Fine.

People aren't treating Brett Kavanaugh very fairly. They should give him the benefit of the doubt, and stop saying mean things about him. Happy?

Now it's my turn.

You know that phrase "Remember Benghazi"? When are you gong to get upset about the fact that nobody gave Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt or the presumption of innocence after the Benghazi attack? Or after the bipartisan investigation found that she did nothing wrong? Or after the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh partisan investigations failed to reveal any impropriety on her part? If the presumption of innocence is an inalienable right then Mrs. Clinton was badly wronged by the GOP, and by many who post on these very boards. For some reason you failed to take them to task. When are you going to do that?

Remember the Uranium One scandal? Remember how Republicans were ready to "lock her up" the second that story hit the air? Remember how it was completely debunked on FOX News? A lot of regulars to these boards were passionate about seeing Hillary go down for treason. They made all kinds of slanderous statements without a shred of evidence to back them. They utterly, gleefully, ignored her inalienable right to the presumption of innocence! Go get 'em, Paul! Burn them in the fires of your righteous fury!

Remember when people refused to believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States, despite having no evidence to the contrary, and that he was therefore both an illegitimate President and a criminal? I'm pretty sure that some of the regulars here still hold to that story. Surely if the President of the United States claims that he was born in the United States people will give him the benefit of the doubt, and not demand that he provide a copy of his birth announcement and two birth certificates. But if he does provide those things then surely they'll accept the validity of his birth. And if some other man, looking for personal political gain, were to refuse to grant the President the presumption of innocence - which is Mr. Obama's inalienable right!!! - then that person would be seen as dishonorable and shunned by decent, right-thinking Americans, right? Right? RIGHT?

Here's the thing, Paul - the people who hated Obama and Clinton didn't give a flying [love] about truth, decency, or anybody's inalienable rights, and neither did the people who uncritically accepted and happily repeated all of their slanderous lies. All they cared about was doing as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible, and as often as possible. For me, sitting here and reading through all of the howls of outrage over poor Brett Kavanaugh is kind of hilarious, in a sickening sort of way. I'm not even sure you guys are aware of the depths of the hypocrisy here, but I assure you, it goes pretty [love] deep.

So sure, everybody has the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence. I'll start taking that seriously as soon as you do.

This is quite pathetic. Even if he's innocent, don't confirm him?

Rick, Kavanaugh is a hard right conservative who will almost definitely be the final piece in the Republican plan to decimate organized labor, gay rights, women's reproductive rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, the ACA and all of the protections contained therein, and a number of other things that liberal Americans hold dear (and working class conservatives will miss when they're gone). Picking Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is Donald Trump's way of telling all of the people that didn't vote for him to go [love] themselves. The sexual assault allegations are significant because they might erode Republican support for Kavanaugh. He never had any Democratic support to lose. So yeah, even if he's innocent he's still a terrible nominee. Don't confirm him.

[RickD]

EdwardMurphy wrote:
Rick, Kavanaugh is a hard right conservative who will almost definitely be the final piece in the Republican plan to decimate organized labor, gay rights, women's reproductive rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, the ACA and all of the protections contained therein, and a number of other things that liberal Americans hold dear (and working class conservatives will miss when they're gone).

Any chance you have proof of this Republican plan? Link to said plan, perhaps?

If it's not all spelled out in one specific plan, I'd at least be interested in the evidence of the plan to decimate gay rights, and women's reproductive rights. The term "reproductive rights" sounds eerily like the term "property rights" when slave owners were crying about their rights.

Picking Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is Donald Trump's way of telling all of the people that didn't vote for him to go [love] themselves. The sexual assault allegations are significant because they might erode Republican support for Kavanaugh. He never had any Democratic support to lose. So yeah, even if he's innocent he's still a terrible nominee. Don't confirm him.

I'm confused. Trump ran on the promises that he would appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, didn't he? At least in this case, he's doing what he said. And second, if kavanaugh is guilty of rape, that's one thing. But crying for him to not be appointed if he's innocent? That just looks petty, and makes Cory Booker look like a fool.

[edwardmurphy]

Nope, no links to "the plan." Just reading the writing on the wall. And that eerie connection only exists as conservative hyperbole. Your contention that a fetus is a person isn't backed by any scientific or medical consensus. It's a religious argument. And at this point I'd be grateful if we could just agree to disagree. I'm not interested in rehashing that entire debate. Anyway, even if I'm wrong that still leaves organized labor, environmental protection, consumer protection, and the ACA. That's more than enough reason to oppose his nomination.

And yes, Trump promised to appoint conservative judges, and he won the electoral vote. But he also claims that he wants to bring us all together, and deep down he has to understand that he lost the popular vote and the majority of the citizens that he represents don't support his plan to stack SCOTUS with hard right conservatives. If he truly gave a damn about unity he'd appoint a moderate. And second, Kavanaugh hasn't even been accused of rape (unless it happened in the last few minutes and I missed it), so if he's guilty of it then the victim has yet to come forward. Regardless, there are unanswered questions about his finances (and therefore his independence), his willingness to look at cases in an objective, nonpartisan fashion, and his behavior during the confirmation process. Beyond that, his views strongly conflict with those of any liberal I've ever met. Expecting Booker to back him, or even to stop opposing his confirmation, simply because he's not a rapist is ridiculous. Barack Obama's not a rapist, but I don't imagine you'd be happy to see him on the Supreme Court.

[RickD]

No ed.

When you call abortion "women's reproductive rights", I'm going to call you out on it. Murdering an unborn human being is not a "reproductive right", just like owning another human being is not "property rights".

It's disingenuous at best. And that's giving you the benefit of doubt.

Systematic Dehumanization is what abortion, slavery, and the holocaust have in common.

[edwardmurphy]

When you call abortion "women's reproductive rights", I'm going to call you out on it. Murdering an unborn human being is not a "reproductive right", just like owning another human being is not "property rights".

It's disingenuous at best. And that's giving you the benefit of doubt.

I know your position on the matter, and I think that you're wrong.

Systematic Dehumanization is what abortion, slavery, and the holocaust have in common.

That's a super good way to make an emotional point, but that's all it is.

Moving on...

[PaulSacramento]

According to some, the court of public opinion is the only one the matters.

You still haven't told me how any of this is supposed to work. Whatever.

It seems like what you want is for me to admit that everyone is treating Kavanaugh very unfairly and they should give him the benefit of the doubt, but you don't want to say "be nice to my guy" because that would seem like partisan pleading, so you're phrasing it as a universal and an unalienable right. Fine.

People aren't treating Brett Kavanaugh very fairly. They should give him the benefit of the doubt, and stop saying mean things about him. Happy?

Now it's my turn.

You know that phrase "Remember Benghazi"? When are you gong to get upset about the fact that nobody gave Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt or the presumption of innocence after the Benghazi attack? Or after the bipartisan investigation found that she did nothing wrong? Or after the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh partisan investigations failed to reveal any impropriety on her part? If the presumption of innocence is an inalienable right then Mrs. Clinton was badly wronged by the GOP, and by many who post on these very boards. For some reason you failed to take them to task. When are you going to do that?

Remember the Uranium One scandal? Remember how Republicans were ready to "lock her up" the second that story hit the air? Remember how it was completely debunked on FOX News? A lot of regulars to these boards were passionate about seeing Hillary go down for treason. They made all kinds of slanderous statements without a shred of evidence to back them. They utterly, gleefully, ignored her inalienable right to the presumption of innocence! Go get 'em, Paul! Burn them in the fires of your righteous fury!

Remember when people refused to believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States, despite having no evidence to the contrary, and that he was therefore both an illegitimate President and a criminal? I'm pretty sure that some of the regulars here still hold to that story. Surely if the President of the United States claims that he was born in the United States people will give him the benefit of the doubt, and not demand that he provide a copy of his birth announcement and two birth certificates. But if he does provide those things then surely they'll accept the validity of his birth. And if some other man, looking for personal political gain, were to refuse to grant the President the presumption of innocence - which is Mr. Obama's inalienable right!!! - then that person would be seen as dishonorable and shunned by decent, right-thinking Americans, right? Right? RIGHT?

Here's the thing, Paul - the people who hated Obama and Clinton didn't give a flying [love] about truth, decency, or anybody's inalienable rights, and neither did the people who uncritically accepted and happily repeated all of their slanderous lies. All they cared about was doing as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible, and as often as possible. For me, sitting here and reading through all of the howls of outrage over poor Brett Kavanaugh is kind of hilarious, in a sickening sort of way. I'm not even sure you guys are aware of the depths of the hypocrisy here, but I assure you, it goes pretty [love] deep.

So sure, everybody has the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence. I'll start taking that seriously as soon as you do.

This is quite pathetic. Even if he's innocent, don't confirm him?

Rick, Kavanaugh is a hard right conservative who will almost definitely be the final piece in the Republican plan to decimate organized labor, gay rights, women's reproductive rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, the ACA and all of the protections contained therein, and a number of other things that liberal Americans hold dear (and working class conservatives will miss when they're gone). Picking Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is Donald Trump's way of telling all of the people that didn't vote for him to go [love] themselves. The sexual assault allegations are significant because they might erode Republican support for Kavanaugh. He never had any Democratic support to lose. So yeah, even if he's innocent he's still a terrible nominee. Don't confirm him.

You seem to be taking a specific stand while I am taking a general one.
I don't care if this guy gets the position or not, makes ZERO difference to me.
You seem to take the view that the END ( this guy not getting the supreme court position) justifies the means ( simple, one person, unproven and unsubstantiated allegations are enough).
That is a VERY, VERY bad way to do things for ALL sides.

As a liberal I am surprised that you would take that stand Ed.

And I think we all agree here ( or at least hope we do) that sexual assault allegations are NOT the same as any other allegations, correct?
I know of people that were accused of other crimes and when prove innocent, they were find.
No so with people that are simply ACCUSED of sexual assault.
Their WHOLE LIVES change even when proven innocent.

[edwardmurphy]

You seem to be taking a specific stand while I am taking a general one.
I don't care if this guy gets the position or not, makes ZERO difference to me.
You seem to take the view that the END ( this guy not getting the supreme court position) justifies the means ( simple, one person, unproven and unsubstantiated allegations are enough).
That is a VERY, VERY bad way to do things for ALL sides.

As a liberal I am surprised that you would take that stand Ed.

I'm not taking a stand on the allegations. It was a long time ago, and clearly there are inconsistencies in Ford's testimony. Then again, it's starting to look like young Brett Kavanaugh was a hard partying, heavy drinking, obnoxious tool, so it's entirely possible that he did exactly what he's being accused of while completely hammered and he legitimately doesn't remember doing it. I guess we'll see what, if anything, the FBI dug up. Assuming it's released.

As far as the ends justifying the means, I'm not stating my preference, I'm making observations about reality. For example, although the inalienable right to the presumption of innocence sounds great, it's never really existed and it never will. It's a lovely fantasy, but it's a fantasy nonetheless. My observations about reality shouldn't be taken as endorsements unless said endorsements are explicitly included.

Anyway, if the allegations are true then Kavanaugh's nomination should be withdrawn. If they're false then I a lot of people owe him an apology, but he's still a terrible nominee and still I don't want him on the Court. Not that I get a vote, mind you. At the end of the day the only people whose opinions even matter are a handful of undecided Republican Senators - Flake, Murkowski, Collins, and maybe Sasse. The Dems and the rest of the GOP will vote along party lines. He'll most likely get confirmed, and if he doesn't then the next nominee will be just as bad. It really doesn't matter much.

And I think we all agree here ( or at least hope we do) that sexual assault allegations are NOT the same as any other allegations, correct?
I know of people that were accused of other crimes and when prove innocent, they were find.
No so with people that are simply ACCUSED of sexual assault.
Their WHOLE LIVES change even when proven innocent.

Sure, I agree with that. But it's important to also remember that sexual harassment and sexual assault are extremely common and are most often unreported, specifically because the victim doesn't want to be subjected having her life put under a microscope, her motivation questioned, and her behavior judged. The victim's whole life changes, too, even if she never tells a soul about the incident.

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, I agree with that. But it's important to also remember that sexual harassment and sexual assault are extremely common and are most often unreported, specifically because the victim doesn't want to be subjected having her life put under a microscope, her motivation questioned, and her behavior judged. The victim's whole life changes, too, even if she never tells a soul about the incident.

I hear you BUT under the presumption of innocence then that is what MUST happen.
When consent is an issue, and it must be, then yes WHAT and WHY must be addressed.
Look, as someone that has had a loved one that was sexually assaulted as a minor by someone that was a "dear family member, a second father", I know all to well the scars and pain of what the survivor goes through.
And yet, as a Father, A son, A husband and a brother it PAINS me to say that it MUST be that way because even ONE innocent persecuted is one too many.
Allegations are not enough, can NEVER be enough.
We need facts, evidence, collaborating witnesses ANYTHING more than just "She said".

[Philip]

I think, with this massive hysteria and reaction to accusations Kavanaugh's accuser, particularly as so many asserted they KNOW what we all well know they cannot - as no one can - that, in left's grand schemes and collective objective of keeping another conservative off the court, they've just about torpedoed their ability to do this twice. I mean, Kavanaugh is not the only well-qualified conservative judge - and quite a few are women. So, it could be, if the nomination of Kavanaugh fails, that he ends up being a sacrificial lamb for the next conservative nominee. Because with their playbook so revealed, these smear tactics and ploys of desperation are highly unlikely to work a second time. And if they try it, they risk greatly offending a lot of swing voters who hate these tactics. Can you see them doing this same thing to a conservative woman?

A huge percentage of Americans have been horrified to see how the left and Democrats have gone about deciding the Kavanaugh issue - with amped-up emotions and feelings instead of a methodical and mature look at the facts. And so people instinctively know this approach of the left, to deciding the truth of something so important, would be a fatal infection if it began to be followed in our courtrooms. Again, that's exactly how the racists of the 19th century obtained verdicts they desired - they lied, stacked juries, bought judges whose main objective was to secure guilty verdicts. It's not a good approach for any country that cares about rule of law and factual, proof-based justice.