Brett Kavanaugh. What has happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"
Duck test.Which court of law did your brilliant "evidence" arrive at.
The OP has 2 subjects - 1, Kavanaugh ; 2, What has happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"ZX is correct about the BI process, I have been through that grinder while obtaining a high level clearance for the U.S. Military. Too bad my SF86 information was stolen along with millions of others... sigh... but that is a different subject entirely.
I have to comment on the liberal mantra of the Supreme Court nomination process being a job interview and not a court of law. While this is true, it is also true that the United States was founded on the principals of innocent until proven guilty, which is a thought process that is weaved throughout our society and history. This core principle of our society is what makes the law work. Now I fully understand that the liberals in this country have successfully removed morality from our school system, or at least made morality subjective; but, the thought process of innocent until proven guilty will not be so easily gutted from society.
As for the temperament argument, give me a break please. I could just as easily say the same thing about every politician on capital hill, regardless of political party, and probably every liberal/conserative judge in the country. Does that mean the we should scrap everything and raise up a monarchy?
When I attempt to look at this from a Democrat's point-of-view... The Democrat politicians on capitol hill completely struck out and failed their constituency. They either staged false leaks and accusations and made a mockery of the Supreme Court nomination process, or they failed to stop a drug pushing, gang rapist from being sworn into the Supreme Court. Either way, an epic failure by the Democrats.
You can beat that tune till the cows come home but it won't change the fact that Kavanaugh was not indicted on any charges, facing a court of law.
Anyone can have an opinion about anything and that includes guilt and innocence.
They can think it and even state that opinion.
What can't be said is Kavanaugh was found guilty ( as, in a court of law ).
Let's face a reality. Everything posted at this forum is really an opinion until specified a fact.
Yes. Kavanaugh was not found guilty of anything. Things brought forth during this circus didn't arise to the level where the FBI acted on it. Lost in all this mess is the fact that if any of the allegations had any ounce of truth, the FBI is compelled as a law enforcement agency to continue steps to bring Kavanaugh to prosecution in court.Anyone remember the 1st Amendment?
Let's kill it and get right with Amerika ( sarcasm for the jackboot element )
Can't have the peeps thinking badly of their politicians and appointments
This would have come up as a risk factor in the 6 BIs Kavanaugh went through. It would have brought severe questions about Kavanaugh's suitability to hold the positions of high public trust. It would have created doubts around his judgement and his ability to perform his job.Alcohol consumption could be one, but imo, the significance isn't on the amount but on the effects which became a he said/she said issue, that wouldn't stand up as 'evidence' in a court room.
This was bad imagery from both anti and pro Kavanaugh political positions.
I agree in principle, but the FBI investigation was limited in scope and interviewees. It paces a question mark not on the FBI, but on what their orders contained.Lost in all this mess is the fact that if any of the allegations had any ounce of truth, the FBI is compelled as a law enforcement agency to continue steps to bring Kavanaugh to prosecution in court.
With respect, I don't see the relevance of alluding to supposed dissatisfaction with investigations when no-one in this thread's even mentioned said investigations.
You say he went a bit overboard. If I say he was at times unhinged, should we then start a poll? The two words that jump out at me are "calm demeanour". I won't say he threw a tantrum because, as he stated, everything he said was planned - by him. I submit that to decide to (let's say) go on to the extent where the "performance" can easily be characterised (rightly or wrongly) by commentators as a partisan rant can hardly be considered judicious. That said, he absolutely lost it at times by his own admission (see apology to Klobuchar).
IMO some of the prevarication (and there was plenty) was INCREDIBLE. At times I half-expected (Mike Myers as) Wayne to interject "Do we have to put up with this? Can't we get a better nominee? It's an important role, and could last a while". Thus I find myself in agreement with former Justice Stevens that his "performance" (alone) should disqualify him from Supreme-ness.
Cheers. (I don't like beer)
https://www.google.com/search?q=refuted&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1"Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,"
That didn't happen. Ford's claims were neither proven nor disproven. No other ones there remembered.prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.