• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: 'I fear' for due process if Kavanaugh is not confirmed

cpwill said:
Actually the Constitution says absolutely nothing about whether or not the Senate has a given time frame in which they must provide advice and/or consent. You don't have to like the way they did it, but the Senate was executing it's Legislative authorities, the same as when Democrats held a bunch of seats open during Bush's tenure so that Hillary or Obama could fill them.
Click to expand...

Actually, the constitution says congress must give advice and consent to the presidents judicial nominations....it doesn't say wait until he's out of office.

Amelia is right, you really don't have a leg to stand on when comes to delaying a judicial nomination.
 
cpwill said:
Actually the Constitution says absolutely nothing about whether or not the Senate has a given time frame in which they must provide advice and/or consent. You don't have to like the way they did it, but the Senate was executing it's Legislative authorities, the same as when Democrats held a bunch of seats open during Bush's tenure so that Hillary or Obama could fill them.
Click to expand...

Well if kavanaigh is delayed until after the misterms and dems regain the senate and the house you won’t be bitchinng about delaying until the next presidential election.
 
Rich2018 said:
What does it matter ?

As long as we keep Republicans from serving on the SC ?
Click to expand...

Earl Warren was a Republican (Appointed by Eisenhower). So was John Paul Stevens (Appointed by Ford). Harry Blackmun, the author of the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was a Republican as well (Appointed by Nixon).

I don't think the idea should ever be to keep Republicans from serving on the Supreme Court.... this particular one ought to be sent packing, though.
 
cpwill said:
So, yeah, just as I said, they treated him better than Democrats are treating Kavanaugh. He wasn't abused at all. Yeah, given that it's the Left who started this **** with Bork, that they are the ones character assassinating judges, and that they are the ones trying to gun down GOP congressmen on baseball fields, I'm not sure the standard you want to be demanding is "eye for eye"
Click to expand...

This is beneath you, well I thought it was, guess not....

First the Republicants controlled the nomination process with Garland so no need to do anything more than refuse to consider it... :roll:

Bork should never had been nominated after his sorry sell out during Watergate.

The Left wasn't running around gunning down Congress women and innocent children in Arizona parking lots so slow your roll on that ignorant crap...

eye for an eye my 4th point of contact... :peace
 
Bucky said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...for-due-process-if-kavanaugh-is-not-confirmed

Thank you, Elizabeth. As a woman, it is important that all views are presented, not just the Democratic/feminist women.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is actually a good response to Cheney's concern.
It amazes me how many Democratic, "so called feminist" women are ignoring what their predecessors fought for all of us to have; equality.
Seems like along the way, today's "feminists" became selfish, entitled, myopic.

As a woman, it pains me to see such deliberate hypocrisy!
 
Casper said:
Due process is related to criminal law
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Due process relates both to civil law AND criminal law, and it is not solely the province of criminal law. For example, I cannot sue you for a million dollars in civil court in secret and without your knowledge. You have to be served with notice of the lawsuit against you, and you must be given time to respond to the suit if you so choose, and I must prove to the Court that I served you with adequate notice. That relates to the concept procedural due process.
 
Was Liz talking to Curveball?

She's just another righty hack.
 
Felis Leo said:
That is incorrect. Due process relates both to civil law AND criminal law, and it is not solely the province of criminal law. For example, I cannot sue you for a million dollars in civil court in secret and without your knowledge. You have to be served with notice of the lawsuit against you, and you must be given time to respond to the suit if you so choose, and I must prove to the Court that I served you with adequate notice. That relates to the concept procedural due process.
Click to expand...

This is neither civil nor criminal law.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Already have. If you had read all of the thread you would know this.
Click to expand...

That's been responded to already:

Cordelier said:
Bradford was nominated on Aug. 16 and the Congressional session ended on Aug. 31 - that was hardly enough time to give the man a hearing, and then debate and vote his nomination... especially in the midst of all of the other legislation that typically happens at the end of a Congressional session (and especially so in an election year). When the 32nd Congress reconvened in December, it and President Fillmore were both lame ducks, and so there wasn't much point in taking up the nomination again... although the didn't stop Fillmore from sending up two more names for the seat. (George Badger was nominated on Jan. 3, then Fillmore withdrew his nomination on Feb. 14 and nominated William Micou in his place, but Micou didn't get a Senate vote either)
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Was Kavanaugh accused of a crime or not?
Click to expand...

If you had read all of the thread you would already know this.

They are trying to determine if he is a good fit to be a supreme court justice. Advise. Consent.

This is neither civil nor criminal law.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...for-due-process-if-kavanaugh-is-not-confirmed

Thank you, Elizabeth. As a woman, it is important that all views are presented, not just the Democratic/feminist women.
Click to expand...
LMAO
Id say thats one of the dumest things ive read because whether he is confirmed or not alone has NOTHING to do with due process that can be dead or alive as far as due process of law is concerned.
Always funny when people right, left or center come up with sound bytes they think are meaningful and they actually make little sense, are monumentally retarded and totally expose their own biased.
 
Amelia said:
It is ironic when people who pound the drum demanding Supreme Court justices who are strict constructionists play so fast and loose with their interpretations of constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

Strict originalism and constructionism are to the law what creationism is to science.
The Constitution is not a fossil cast in amber, nor is it a ship in a glass bottle.

If it was, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.
There are 12,134 words in The Constitution of the United States of America. A sophisticated version of "F3" could take the place of all nine justices if originalism is carried to its ultimate conclusion.
Trained monkeys or software could do the job.
Then again, look at what Grover Norquist wants in a president, someone "who can hold a pen".

Last but not least, we are two states away from a Constitutional Convention.
I guarantee you that EVERY LAST ONE of these holier than thou originalists will look like this when the time comes for a revisit to their "sacred" Constitution:

flamethrower-2.gif
 
Praxas said:
Republicans through away due process with garland. Deal with it con and hope you get more of it Bucky.
Click to expand...


you're lying or you don't understand the term.
 
Howard the Duck said:
If you had read all of the thread you would already know this.

They are trying to determine if he is a good fit to be a supreme court justice. Advise. Consent.

This is neither civil nor criminal law.
Click to expand...

Has he been accused of a crime? Yes or No. Setting matters not. What has Ms. Ford accused him of? Is what she accused him a crime or not?
 
Bucky said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...for-due-process-if-kavanaugh-is-not-confirmed

Thank you, Elizabeth. As a woman, it is important that all views are presented, not just the Democratic/feminist women.
Click to expand...

My perception of this is that the democrats/globalists are simply up to their same dirty old games. For decades now they've used the same tactic to further their NWO agenda. Artificially make happen whatever needs to happen that will facilitate whatever it is they need to have happen happen. When it's judges and politician's that they need to not be seated they don't have anywhere to turn so the trend has become: have women come out and accuse them of sexual assault from 40 years ago and this will keep them from being seated. Why don't people wake up and see through this dirty and now overused tactic that is ruining the careers and lives of innocent people? Anybody scoffing at what I'm saying here need only be reminded of Project Veritas where democratic operatives were secretly filmed offering women exorbitant amounts of money to lie and say that president Trump sexually abused them.

https://www.thewrap.com/bill-oreill...ng-paid-to-accuse-trump-of-sexual-misconduct/
 
Kal'Stang said:
Has he been accused of a crime? Yes or No. Setting matters not. What has Ms. Ford accused him of? Is what she accused him a crime or not?
Click to expand...

He's been accused, but not in a court. Setting matters bigtime. And certainly, he's not been charged. But he IS under oath.

Good times.
 
Howard the Duck said:
He's been accused, but not in a court. Setting matters bigtime. And certainly, he's not been charged. But he IS under oath.

Good times.
Click to expand...

Name me one claim of any type of crime that ever begins by being accused in a court. I get it, people that don't want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS bench do not want to admit that he is being accused of a crime. They want to make the narrative about him interviewing for a job. But plain fact of the matter is that he IS being accused of a crime. Which takes precedence over anything else. And the standards that should apply for such is much higher.
 
If I shot lawyers in the face, I'd fear for due process too.

Long live Darth Cheney.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Name me one claim of any type of crime that ever begins by being accused in a court. I get it, people that don't want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS bench do not want to admit that he is being accused of a crime. They want to make the narrative about him interviewing for a job. But plain fact of the matter is that he IS being accused of a crime. Which takes precedence over anything else. And the standards that should apply for such is much higher.
Click to expand...

He is not being accused of a crime. The Senate sub committee is not making any determination on whether the incident happened, guilt, or innocence.

Senators are free to believe the incident happened as Dr. Ford details. Or they can believe the incident did not happened as Dr. Ford detailed.

...and Senators can believe, to any degree they wish any parts of the incident Dr. Ford detailed.

They don't need any proof at all.

They didn't even have to listen listen to Dr. Ford or ask any questions of Judge Kavanaugh on the issue.

The Senate rules are not due process.
 
Last edited:
Being denied a position on the Supreme Court is a long ****ing way from being convicted and sentenced with a crime. Being a woman doesn't exempt her from being an amoral mass of human garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom