• 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

1751Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since when is sexual assault not a crime? That you can sit there and say with a straight face that he's not being accused of a crime is hilarious. All you did was :spin::spin::spin:
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since when is sexual assault not a crime? That you can sit there and say with a straight face that he's not being accused of a crime is hilarious. All you did was :spin::spin::spin:
Click to expand...

It is not a criminal court proceeding. There's no chance of a criminal conviction or sentence.

So the acts he accused of committing may be illegal, but no... he is not being accused of a crime, he's not facing criminal punishment, and the legal standards of criminal proceedings do not apply.

You're the one who is being dishonest here.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It is not a criminal court proceeding. There's no chance of a criminal conviction or sentence.

So the acts he accused of committing may be illegal, but no... he is not being accused of a crime, he's not facing criminal punishment, and the legal standards of criminal proceedings do not apply.

You're the one who is being dishonest here.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if this is not a court proceeding. A crime has been claimed. It is upon the claimant to prove that claim.

Jesus Christ people. It's so freaking pathetic that so many people want to throw out 200+ years of history and one of the things, one of our founding principles, that makes this country so damn great. All for politics. Its disgusting.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It does not matter if this is not a court proceeding. A crime has been claimed. It is upon the claimant to prove that claim.
Click to expand...

Or else what? It is incumbent upon the claimant to prove the claim, or else what? The accused is going to be acquitted of all charges?

Oh, that's right, the accused isn't being charged with anything.

So what, exactly, do you think people should be doing here that is not already happening? He was publicly accused of criminal acts outside of the statute of limitations, he was questioned about them in a Senate committee-- under no threat of criminal charges until he consciously perjured himself-- and then he melted down like the colossal manbaby that nominated him. Regardless of his guilt or innocence of criminal acts he cannot possibly be charged with, his response to the accusation has proven that he is unfit for the position he already has, much less the promotion he is being offered.

Which is the purpose and function of the legal proceeding you're complaining about.

If Dr. Ford cannot prove her allegations beyond reasonable doubt of an assault so old her alleged assailant cannot even be charged with it, what consequences are you proposing she should face? How should she be punished for failing to prove that a powerful political figure forced himself on her thirty years ago?

Or do you just think we're being too diligent in screening judges for the most powerful court in our country?

Kal'Stang said:
Jesus Christ people. It's so freaking pathetic that so many people want to throw out 200+ years of history and one of the things, one of our founding principles, that makes this country so damn great. All for politics. Its disgusting.
Click to expand...

Oh, the humanity! Two hundred years of American history, right down the toilet, because we're actually scrutinizing the people nominated for our highest offices!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since when is sexual assault not a crime? That you can sit there and say with a straight face that he's not being accused of a crime is hilarious. All you did was :spin::spin::spin:
Click to expand...


Because I can understand the difference in a criminal trial and it's rules of evidence and a Senate sub committee's advice and consent hearing for a judicial nominee...and its rules.
 
Praxas said:
Republicans through away due process with garland. Deal with it con and hope you get more of it Bucky.
Click to expand...

Stop making up bull****, Garland never had a damn thing to do with DUE PROCESS, zero, zilch, nada!!
 
American said:
Stop making up bull****, Garland never had a damn thing to do with DUE PROCESS, zero, zilch, nada!!
Click to expand...

Sure it did, partisan Republicans weren't going to give ANY Obama nomination a shot and instead delayed for 300 days for PARTISAN reasons. Well now the shoe is on the other foot so deal with it con. Kavanaugh will be delayed until after the midterms and then a Dem congress will delay until 2020. DEAL WITH THAT con! You guys like partisanship, prepare to have it shoved down your throat for 8 years of Obama obstruction from you all.
 
I really don't care what Brett Kavanaugh did 36 years ago, what I do care about is his past history in respect to the Constitution. Kavanaugh assault on the 4th amendment is telling about his views and for this alone he should not be on the SCOTUS.
 
i know its only 58 posts but can anybody explain how this retarded claim makes any honest, logical, factual and or legit sense?....

what does confirmation of SCOTUS have to do with due process?
how does him getting confirmed change due process?

(hint: the answer is NOTHING,ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO NADA lmao)
 
Praxas said:
Sure it did, partisan Republicans weren't going to give ANY Obama nomination a shot and instead delayed for 300 days for PARTISAN reasons. Well now the shoe is on the other foot so deal with it con. Kavanaugh will be delayed until after the midterms and then a Dem congress will delay until 2020. DEAL WITH THAT con! You guys like partisanship, prepare to have it shoved down your throat for 8 years of Obama obstruction from you all.
Click to expand...

He wasn't entitled to due process because it was about giving him a confirmation hearing or not............he didn't have a right to a hearing, nor was this a criminal concern.
 
Amelia said:
I used to like her. Before she had an official Facebook page presence, I started a tribute Facebook group for her. We closed the group when she her official page went up.

But some time after that (yet now many years ago) she lost favor with me. Can't remember what led to her downfall in my esteem, but her hyperbolic concern for "due process" in a situation which has nothing to do with due process shows she continues to abdicate the understanding I know she has in favor of climbing on the partisan bandwagon.

Complaining about due process violations in giving or denying someone a lifetime appointment to the highest court is like complaining about first amendment violations when a private social media platform bans someone from posting at their site.



The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





The ultimate decision of whether to seat Kavanaugh or not has nothing to do with due process.
Click to expand...

Or decency. Don’t come crying to me about poor illegal aliens and their children in the next breath.
 
chuckiechan said:
Or decency. Don’t come crying to me about poor illegal aliens and their children in the next breath.
Click to expand...

WTF?

I won't cry to you about anything. Pretty sure that's a safe bet.

This thread is not about immigration. It is about a GOP alarmist's misunderstanding of due process. Someone who is smart enough to know better.
 
Amelia said:
WTF?

I won't cry to you about anything. Pretty sure that's a safe bet.

This thread is not about immigration. It is about a GOP alarmist's misunderstanding of due process. Someone who is smart enough to know better.
Click to expand...

“You” as a generalized placeholder for “decent” people against immigration enforcement.

I’m honored to be your first thread crap.
 
chuckiechan said:
“You” as a generalized placeholder for “decent” people against immigration enforcement.

I’m honored to be your first thread crap.
Click to expand...


My first thread crap?

No idea what that means and have no interest in talking about you or me or crap.



So I'll just point out the subject of the thread one more time: an intelligent woman with a great political pedigree and no excuse to be ignorant about "due process" chose to act ignorant about the matter anyway to stir the pot.

The treatment of Kavanaugh has nothing to do with due process. Failure to confirm him will not be the result of a violation of due process. It will not be a threat to the future of due process in this country. Liz Cheney is trying to get some attention from people that she thinks will respond well to ignorant statements about constitutional notions.

That is all.
 
Praxas said:
Republicans through away due process with garland. Deal with it con and hope you get more of it Bucky.
Click to expand...

The Democrats have ceded the high ground on Garland. Since Republicans controlled the Senate, what do you think would have happened if he had a hearing?

Well in case you don't know -I'll clue you in. They would have voted him down.Just like the Dems did to Gorsuch and they will do to Kavanaugh. And they would have done it even if that sleazebag Feinstein hadn't hooked up with that Ford wiftbag.
 
Amelia said:
My first thread crap?

No idea what that means and have no interest in talking about you or me or crap.



So I'll just point out the subject of the thread one more time: an intelligent woman with a great political pedigree and no excuse to be ignorant about "due process" chose to act ignorant about the matter anyway to stir the pot.

The treatment of Kavanaugh has nothing to do with due process. Failure to confirm him will not be the result of a violation of due process. It will not be a threat to the future of due process in this country. Liz Cheney is trying to get some attention from people that she thinks will respond well to ignorant statements about constitutional notions.

That is all.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. I'm sure she was talking about the *concept * of due process which is ( correctly) embedded in our society and certainly applies to this confirmation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom