The Presumption of Guilt The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.

[Cordelier]

that isn't what they are saying. your right this isn't about him being innocent this is all political.
this is about smearing a good man's name for the sake of politics and how anyone can support it is beyond me.

Oh, give me a break.

Neil Gorsuch didn't have these accusations against him. Neither did Alito or Roberts. There comes a point where there's enough "There!" there that no reasonable person can deny that there's actually something there.

And let's not forget that Kavanaugh himself was the one egging Ken Starr on to ask President Clinton sexually explicit questions during his Grand Jury testimony. If you're going to take that kind of stance, I'd suggest you have to be like Caesar's wife - be beyond reproach yourself.

Kavanaugh needs to do the decent thing and withdraw his name from consideration - the same way Bob Livingston turned down the House Speakership after Gingrich resigned. He needs to acknowledge that the office is bigger than the man.

 

[JustHanging]

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

This isn't for a court case, this is for an appointment as justice to the highest court in the land. IMO there should be an investigation, because it would be wrong to take a chance on having a lying rapist becoming a justice on the SC in the name of political expediency.

 

[JustHanging]

There’s no burden of proof. This is a job interview. If 51 senators vote no because they don’t like his hair, that’s the standard.

Well said, the conservatives on this thread really do seem to be having a lot of problems with this concept.

 

[ludin]

Oh, give me a break.

Neil Gorsuch didn't have these accusations against him. Neither did Alito or Roberts. There comes a point where there's enough "There!" there that no reasonable person can deny that there's actually something there.

they were not as political as this pick or as thomas's pick.
There is nothing there. none of these women can support their accusations.
none of their witneses are supporting them either.

in fact in the 2nd one she was telling people she was calling she wasn't sure he was even there.
You don't remember that they were going to try and sink this from the beginning. They thought they could sink
it in the hearing and they failed.

The FBI did 6 background checks and found nothing of this type of behavior.

And let's not forget that Kavanaugh himself was the one egging Ken Starr on to ask President Clinton sexually explicit questions during his Grand Jury testimony. If you're going to take that kind of stance, I'd suggest you have to be like Caesar's wife - be beyond reproach yourself.

As a prosecutor that was his job. he is required by law to do that.

Kavanaugh needs to do the decent thing and withdraw his name from consideration - the same way Bob Livingston turned down the House Speakership after Gingrich resigned. He needs to acknowledge that the office is bigger than the man.

No he doesn't he has done nothing wrong. this is political smear at it's finest and the fact you support it tells me all i need to know.

 

[Cordelier]

they were not as political as this pick or as thomas's pick.
There is nothing there. none of these women can support their accusations.
none of their witneses are supporting them either.

in fact in the 2nd one she was telling people she was calling she wasn't sure he was even there.
You don't remember that they were going to try and sink this from the beginning. They thought they could sink
it in the hearing and they failed.

The FBI did 6 background checks and found nothing of this type of behavior.



As a prosecutor that was his job. he is required by law to do that.



No he doesn't he has done nothing wrong. this is political smear at it's finest and the fact you support it tells me all i need to know.

Have you been living under a rock or something? Every Supreme Court pick has been political! However, not every one has these types of allegations made against them.

Kavanaugh just has too much baggage... there is his role in the Starr witchhunt. There's his time at the White House and the Republican refusal to release pertinent documents. There's his misleading testimony during his 2006 and 2018. There's the question of his legal judgment by refusing to recuse himself on ruling on detainee policies he had a hand in formulating. These accusations are just the icing on the cake.

It's time for the President to cut bait and name someone who doesn't come with this kind of baggage.

And if Kavanaugh has any decency, he'd follow the example of Bob Livingston... or Judge Doug Ginsburg, who withdrew his SCOTUS nomination for (gasp!) smoking pot in the 60's. The office is bigger than the man.

 

[Deuce]

that isn't what they are saying. your right this isn't about him being innocent this is all political.
this is about smearing a good man's name for the sake of politics and how anyone can support it is beyond me.

You are operating under the assumption he is innocent because you want him on the court.

 

[ludin]

Have you been living under a rock or something? Every Supreme Court pick has been political! However, not every one has these types of allegations made against them.

Kavanaugh just has too much baggage... there is his role in the Starr witchhunt. There's his time at the White House and the Republican refusal to release pertinent documents. There's his misleading testimony during his 2006 and 2018. There's the question of his legal judgment by refusing to recuse himself on ruling on detainee policies he had a hand in formulating. These accusations are just the icing on the cake.

It's time for the President to cut bait and name someone who doesn't come with this kind of baggage.

And if Kavanaugh has any decency, he'd follow the example of Bob Livingston... or Judge Doug Ginsburg, who withdrew his SCOTUS nomination for (gasp!) smoking pot in the 60's. The office is bigger than the man.

there is no baggage he is clean as a whistle.
no the office is not bigger than the man he is perfectly fine and more than qualified to sit in that office.

you would like them to cut bait say call for the vote and confirm the next judge.
no witness to corroborate the accusations.
the accusers can't prove their story.

say goodnight Grace.

 

[ludin]

You are operating under the assumption he is innocent because you want him on the court.

nope because he is innocent until someone can prove otherwise. so far no one has proven otherwise.

 

[Cordelier]

there is no baggage he is clean as a whistle.
no the office is not bigger than the man he is perfectly fine and more than qualified to sit in that office.

you would like them to cut bait say call for the vote and confirm the next judge.
no witness to corroborate the accusations.
the accusers can't prove their story.

say goodnight Grace.

If he was truly "clean as a whistle", then I'd suggest that the Republicans would have been more forthcoming with his White House records. I don't want to disparage good people, but nobody who takes a White House job is "clean as a whistle". Nobody. First off, the moment you walk in the door of the West Wing, the President owns you. Your life isn't your own anymore. Everything you say, everything you do reflects back on the President. You've got to stifle your own beliefs and opinions and sublimate them to those of the President's. If you want to be a free thinker, well, you should have joined the Marine Corps - they're more amenable to it. Secondly, you're always under immense stress... it's like working in a boiler. The combined pressure of all the functioning of the Government is pressing down on you. It's relentless. There are things that have to get done... no matter what it takes. If you have to cut corners or make judgment calls of questionable morality, well, that's just what it takes.

You know, over the years we've had a lot of fine legal minds work in the White House.... but I can't think of a single one who went on to serve on the Supreme Court. You'd think there'd be one or two there... after all, they have the connections, they work with the President on a daily basis. I imagine the reason is that most of them have the judgment and self-awareness to realize that the compromises they've had to make along the way have essentially disqualified them. Those who don't - like Harriet Miers - seem to get filtered out of the confirmation process eventually.

 

[Grokmaster]

It is no longer the preponderance of the evidence, but the "seriousness of the accusation", in Leftworld.

Stalin taught them well....

 

[Cordelier]

Cut the Stalin crap... where was all of this "presumption of innocence" during the Starr Investigation? You want to explain to me exactly how the investigation of a failed land deal in Arkansas from the 1970's eventually became all about impeaching a President for lying about a blowjob in the Oval Office?

So give it a break... Judge Kavanaugh gets just as much "presumption of innocence" as he gave President Clinton. The man is getting hoisted on his own petard.

 

[Deuce]

nope because he is innocent until someone can prove otherwise. so far no one has proven otherwise.

No, I mean all of your posting only fits the profile of one who has already decided on innocence. To you, the conclusion is already made.

 

[Deuce]

It is no longer the preponderance of the evidence, but the "seriousness of the accusation", in Leftworld.

Stalin taught them well....

Hillary Clinton is 100% innocent of all crimes, then? You are willing to agree with this?

 

[Tangmo]

sure there is. it doesn't matter 1 iota if it is a job interview. he still doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

You musta had a lot of business failures given you have no clue about doing a job interview. Probably ended up with only lousy jobs besides. Had to grab hold of what you could get.

they were not as political as this pick or as thomas's pick.

Thomas was confirmed by a hair, 52-48. He's carried his sleazebag with him on the bench of each Scotus term.

there is no baggage he is clean as a whistle.
no the office is not bigger than the man he is perfectly fine and more than qualified to sit in that office.

say goodnight Grace.

Your dangerous notion that the office is not bigger than the man is what Kavanaugh says about Trump, the presidency and the Constitution. Kavanaugh is of a critical importance to Trump on the Court given a main purpose of the Putin-Trump-Fanboyz Triumvirate is to demolish the Constitution. This includes you.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

Why is Grassley and the GOP so afraid of an FBI investigation? The FBI investigated the Anita Hill accusations and it required only three days.

Why exactly is the GOP knee-capping any investigation of Kavanaugh? GOP justice is only GOP-friendly justice?

I hope American women crucify the GOP on November 6 for forbidding the truth to be known one way or the other.

 

[ultmd]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

So when did the WSJ editorial board....and you....and every other man or woman who supported, promoted or otherwise failed to condemn the whole "Lock her Up!" narrative.........suddenly re-discover the 14th Amendment?

Please, be candid in your response.

 

[Mr Person]

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

An "actual lawyer" would know that the "presumption of innocence" requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and is only applicable at a criminal trial. Such an "actual lawyer" would know that there are many different standards of proof not involving any such presumption.

For examples:

- Decision on motion to dismiss a civil complaint (do the pleadings state a cause of action if all
- Decision on motion to dismiss a civil complaint (probable cause)
- Decision on a motion to suppress in criminal case (reasonable suspicion based on articulable fact to believe a crime was/is being/will be committed or that the suspect is armed or probable cause, depending on stop vs. type of stop vs. search).
- Decision on motion for summary judgment in civil case (Celotex standard + any newer twists)
- Judgment after civil trial (preponderance of evidence that allegations are true, or more likely or not)
- Damages (full vs. comparative negligence in most jurisdiction; punitive + compensatory + any statutory)
- Sentencing (preponderance or reasonable doubt, depending on relation of sentencing factor to statutory sentence range in light of Apprendi and progreny).
- AND MORE! SEE YOUR LOCAL LAW SCHOOL FOR MORE FACTS!

A vaguely politically savy individual, lawyer or not, would know that there is no standard of proof for a confirmation vote. The only standard that matters is the vote itself. There is a separate duty to give "advice and consent" to the President but there is no mechanism for enforcement so it does not mean much of anything in practice.

Now maybe you want him to be presumed innocence with all that term entails, but it doesn't mean that that's the standard in play or that an "actual lawyer" would have anything like that to say.




Bad try and no thank you for playing.

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

Again, an actual lawyer would know that in a criminal trial, the testimony of a single witness can constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That actual lawyer would also know that preponderance is a lesser standard. So an actual lawyer would also know that if a single witness's testimony can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it could most certainly be proof by a ponderance of evidence.

Meanwhile, an actual lawyer who isn't distorting the situation for partisan endshttps://www.debatepolitics.com/editpost.php?p=1069080728&do=editpost while masquerading as a thoughtful contrarian would also know that congress isn't being asked to judge things as they stand right now, and would not obfuscate the fact that Ford has indicated a willingness to testify nor the fact of additional witnesses coming forward.

Once they testify, their testimony will be "evidence" and would be enough to defeat the presumption of innocence where it actually applies which, again, an "actual lawyer" would know is not here.

 

[roughdraft274]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

Did they seriously use the term "due process" in the title? Due process?

This has absolutely nothing to do with due process. No one is suggesting that he should be thrown in jail without due process. Due process has absolutely nothing to do with public opinion, judicial nominations, confirmations etc. Bringing up due process is dishonest and incredibly, mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[Mr Person]

When 10 altar boys come out and blame the same priest there's evidence. When one woman blames one guy and NOBODY else corroborates the story and 6 FBI background investigations didn't turn up the kind of behavior involved the accusation is little more than spitting in the wind.

Trump had 16 accusers, plus others referring to rooms full of teenagers he walked in on whilst they were changing. That just got labeled a conspiracy. Just like the Mueller investigation got labeled a conspiracy.



Say....you yourself did some of that labeling, didn't you?

 

[Mr Person]

Did they seriously use the term "due process" in the title? Due process?

This has absolutely nothing to do with due process. No one is suggesting that he should be thrown in jail without due process. Due process has absolutely nothing to do with public opinion, judicial nominations, confirmations etc. Bringing up due process is dishonest and incredibly, mind-numbingly stupid.

It really baffles me the way some people choose to completely discredit themselves when there was a perfectly reasonable alternative handy. He could have said "in general, I don't think we should just assume someone did what another person claiming sexual assault said. We should listen to evidence and make a judgment."

OK, fine, easy. Very few people would disagree. But no, he has to claim that "actual lawyers" - implying he is one ( :lamo ) - would know that the due process standard of presumption of innocence/proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the judging of this accusation against Kavanaugh (it's not entirely clear whether he means the public must meet this standard or congress, but then, that's likely because he didn't bother to think about it. "Presumption of innocence" just sounded good, like it would give his post +50 hit points and a better to-hit roll).

Except that "actual lawyers" would know that his post was nonsense even if, like me, they devoted their entire career to protecting the presumption of innocence for the people most often screwed and screwed hardest by the government and were therefore fully on board with the far more generic notion that we shouldn't automatically assume she's telling the full accurate truth.

So why does he feel the need to claim that "actual lawyers" would know what he says is true? It's really quite baffling.

 

[Lutherf]

Trump had 16 accusers, plus others referring to rooms full of teenagers he walked in on whilst they were changing. That just got labeled a conspiracy. Just like the Mueller investigation got labeled a conspiracy.



Say....you yourself did some of that labeling, didn't you?

Yeah. Like that one woman on the plane who let him fondle her boobs for 15 minutes but then had to move because he got "handsy". You've got to love those accusations. Besides, with Stormy's book we now have evidence that the guy pays for sex rather than gets freebies.

 

[Mr Person]

Yeah. Like that one woman on the plane who let him fondle her boobs for 15 minutes but then had to move because he got "handsy". You've got to love those accusations. Besides, with Stormy's book we now have evidence that the guy pays for sex rather than gets freebies.

You suggested that 10 accusers would change things for you:

When 10 altar boys come out and blame the same priest there's evidence. When one woman blames one guy and NOBODY else corroborates the story and 6 FBI background investigations didn't turn up the kind of behavior involved the accusation is little more than spitting in the wind.

I pointed out even more than 10 didn't:

Trump had 16 accusers, plus others referring to rooms full of teenagers he walked in on whilst they were changing. That just got labeled a conspiracy. Just like the Mueller investigation got labeled a conspiracy.

Say....you yourself did some of that labeling, didn't you?

Don't divert. This has nothing to do with the number or strength of accusations. You want a hard right court for decades rather than a balanced court, so you just plain do not care if the accusations are true.

(And of course, I had to point out to you elsewhere on this forum that a background check isn't going to turn up an unreported sexual assault and if one won't neither will six or sixty.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

Hmmmm, where were they when it was "Al Franken's turn in the barrel" ?

The Presumption of Guilt is a Roger Stone standard. You guys just hate it when your own tools are turned loose on your people.

 

[Mr Person]

Hmmmm, where were they when it was "Al Franken's turn in the barrel" ?


The Presumption of Guilt is a Roger Stone standard. You guys just hate it when your own tools are turned loose on your people.

A presumption of guilt standard would be wrong, too

 

[vesper]

This whole thing of claiming because a woman makes accusations Lord knows how far back that she is to be believed regardless scares the Hell out of every mother of a son, a wife, a sister, a grandmother This kind of thinking is totalitarianism.