Can anyone explain to me why Trump (who admittedly does not have a law degree) and various senators think that 'Innocent until proven guilty" has a valid role in the Kavanaugh job interview?
Because it otherwise sets a standard where anyone up for political office, a position as a judge, or The Supreme Court could automatically be declined because anyone could come out and make a false claim against anyone running or nominated for a postion. I surely know if I was interviewing for a job that a claim never made public until years later would disqualify me even without any proof or a shred of evidence.
Im not even going to get into all the holes in her story as well as Frankenstein waiting until he was about to be voted on to bring forth the accusations. It’s nothing but a politicsl game by the left to stall the nomination hoping to take over the house and senate to wait until 2021 to appoint a leftist Justice when Trump is gone. If you research Dr. Blasey-Ford she is a documented anti-Trump protester.
This post was edited by Rizz at October 3, 2018 5:10 AM MDT
But did you listen to Kavanaugh, a sitting, supposedly composed, level-headed, and fair-minded appellate judge, whine about a supposed Clinton-engineered Democratic conspiracy and speak disrespectfully to Senator Klobuchar and others? Whatever he may or may not have done, nobody who is capable of coming that unglued has any business being seated for life on the SCOTUS bench.
I disagree. If I was falsely accused of rape and in his situation I’d be p***** off too. We’re all human and we all become angry. In his situation I would have have lost it worse than he did.
This post was edited by Rizz at October 2, 2018 9:16 PM MDT
But given that Blasey-Ford also has a life and her own professional reputation, why would she put herself on the line and lie about something like that in such a high-profile, public setting? It makes no sense. And if it's one person's word against another's, why not lean on the side of believing the person who has less to gain instead of choosing that which you wish to be true?
It’s not about what side I want to be true. It’s about proof, evidence, and credibility to me. She’s less credible to me at this point. I’m not exactly a supporter of Kavanaugh, but why do we simply choose to believe the accuser automatically?
Until solid proof, evidence, and a story without holes is given,I don’t buy it. I watched her body language and focused on her fake whiny little girl voice. She hasn‘t convinced some, but not me. Kavanaugh want exactly convincing either, but more than Dr. Blasey-Ford, IMHO.
This post was edited by Rizz at October 4, 2018 4:46 AM MDT
Kavanaugh had a chance to rebut the allegations, which I believe he did very poorly. I have no cause to think Dr Ford was lying, but neither do I apply any weight to High School shenanigans determining Kavanaugh’s qualifications all these decades later. I happen to disagree with his nomination, for some of the reasons you cited, Stu, but it would surprise me if it will derail his confirmation.
One of the couples we know has a grandson about 8 years old. They were over with a number of people at Thanksgiving last year.
He decided to stun a fly (with his mother's help) that he had found to bring it home for his carnivorous plant (Venus Fly Trap) that he had just gotten for his birthday 6 week earlier.
It was over quickly, and I was a little uncomfortable with the situation at the time (but I have fished with worms, minnows, may flies, and crickets) but it was over quickly---and actually, many years ago I had done the same for my Venus Fly Trap and fed live food to a turtle.
So nothing really wrong with that except for the timing---but if he had decided to remove the wings, legs, and head of the fly after stunning it, alarm bells would have gone off.
I would not be surprised that as head of his class academically and as captain of the basketball team that he may have fallen victim to the thought that he was above women (misogynist?) and saw them as "prey" and primarily existing to satisfy his needs.
I'm not convinced that his probable personal opinion of about 50% of the population was forever satisfied and / or neutralized by whatever he did during those "shenanigans."
Kavanaugh has not been accused of a crime by a prosecuting body. His liberty isn’t at stake. He’s just a guy who’s up for a job. When you’re applying for a job, an employer doesn’t have to prove you’re guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to discard you from the running. They can simply not hire you, deciding you’re not a good fit, and there’s no onus on them to provide evidence that you’ve done something wrong. Or as Hirono told MSNBC, “Look, we’re not in a court of law. We’re actually in a court of credibility at this point.”
Even when you’re up for a seat on the highest court in the land, you simply can’t expect the protections granted by the justice system, because a confirmation hearing is not a legal venue. The presumption of innocence, which places the burden of proving guilt on an accuser, applies only to state actors like prosecutors, not in the employment context.
(Edit: added Italics---its from the internet)
This post was edited by tom jackson at October 3, 2018 4:56 PM MDT
I understand it isn’t a criminal charge. I have a problem with anyone who’s up for nomination could have it ruined because anyone could come forward and make an accusation. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? If I was someone who interviewed and hired someone I would want proof they’re guilty before I disqualify them for the position. The exception is there would be substantial proof and evidence. This could open up a can of worms and could lead to this happening every time. He passed six background checks. I guess that means nothing. I’ve made my points. It’s obvious none of us are going to change our minds.
This post was edited by Rizz at October 3, 2018 5:53 PM MDT
'Innocent until proven guilty' is a legal construction but as far as I know it has ruled America's investigatory processes in and outside of the courtroom. What is going on is shameful. My opinion.
Accusations have no place in a job interview, a hiring, a job firing, or cause any other negative result as to the alleged actor. Until there are convictions, accusations should remain weightless. This country has gone berserk on accusations.
This post was edited by Thriftymaid at October 2, 2018 9:17 PM MDT
I will offer an impartial thought on this, though I am no legal expert:
This is not a criminal trial; it is a character assessment of a job applicant. It just happens to be for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. We might agree the bar should be high.
Based on public accusations, there is now an open investigation into their validity. That’s it. It’s politics and it’s sordid, but NOT a trial. Kavanaugh is not under indictment, no one has brought legal charges against him in any court of law. Until that happens, innocent until proven guilty has no play here.
I agree in the legal sense. I don’t agree an accusation without proof or a shred of evidence should be causing such a circus from both sides. I’ll admit Im partial on this. This is because of research I have done on this situation. I would be equally outraged in republicans were doing this to a democrat.
This post was edited by Rizz at October 3, 2018 5:31 PM MDT
I think to an extent (maybe more than just that) Dems are being politically vindictive over the Merrick Garland travesty, foisted by Republicans after Scalia died. All of this was unnecessary, in my view, and it makes the world laugh at our failing leadership.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 3, 2018 5:32 PM MDT
It's similar to when people shout "freedom of speech!" when they're banned from a website. You know it doesn't legally apply, but you feel that it should apply in a more overarching, principled way because of how ingrained it is in our society.
I agree that it does not apply here. But that is my answer for why people behave as if it does.
More money is usually better than less money. People somehow deduce from that statement that more is generally better than less.
So if 3000mg of Tylenol is good, then 6000mg must be better.
At least that error is not "ingrained it is in our society."
Too bad "innocent until proven guilty" is so ingrained---there is a reason related to the "burden of proof" required by our justice system to prove a defendant guilty, but it does not serve the truth well in every case.
Walt O'Reagun 