• 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

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,575
Reaction score
6,362
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rep. Liz Cheney said in a tweet Saturday morning that she shares a "fear" that due process may be dead if Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is not confirmed.

The comment from the Wyoming Republican follows Thursday's hearing involving Kavanaugh and the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct more than 30 years ago, Christine Blasey Ford.

Cheney, responding to a tweet from Fox News' Martha MacCallum, said she shares MacCallum's fear that if Kavanaugh "goes down" that it would set an "unfair precedent where evidence is unnecessary."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Due process is related to criminal law, which this is not, it is a job interview for the highest court in the land and as such possible character flaws are important to know about, she seems to have missed that point. See I did not even mention Dr Evil she so admires....oh wait, OK I just did, oops.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Praxas said:
Republicans through away due process with garland. Deal with it con and hope you get more of it Bucky.
Click to expand...

No such thing happened. Garland did not get a hearing. Just like other nominee's in the past.

"Deal with it lib and hope it happens more often to you." <---See, I can spout partisan rhetoric also. Difference between me and you, I don't actually mean it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No such thing happened. Garland did not get a hearing. Just like other nominee's in the past.

"Deal with it lib and hope it happens more often to you." <---See, I can spout partisan rhetoric also. Difference between me and you, I don't actually mean it.
Click to expand...

What Supreme Court nominees never got a hearing before Garland?
 
Casper said:
Due process is related to criminal law, which this is not, it is a job interview for the highest court in the land and as such possible character flaws are important to know about, she seems to have missed that point. See I did not even mention Dr Evil she so admires....oh wait, OK I just did, oops.
Click to expand...

Fine, we will call it "presumption of innocence" if you want to split hairs.
 
SDET said:
Fine, we will call it "presumption of innocence" if you want to split hairs.
Click to expand...

Again a legal term not really related to this issue.
 
Praxas said:
Republicans through away due process with garland.
Click to expand...

OTC. Republicans never accused Garland of anything without supporting evidence.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Made a whole thread about it right here: Link
Click to expand...

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)
 
Liz Cheney? Bucky, you need to cling to her every word, embrace her genius political philosophy. :roll:

Due process, my ass. Since when has Due Process become part of a job interview?
 
cpwill said:
:) Okedoke :)
Click to expand...

I'm serious... it has nothing to do with the Ford allegations and everything to do with the credibility, fairness, and legal judgment of Judge Kavanaugh. On or about August 1, 2002 there was a meeting in Alberto Gonzales' office to debate the Bybee Torture Memo.... obviously Gonzales was there... so was his Deputy, Tim Flanigan, the Vice President's counsel David Addington and a member of the White House Counsel's office, Bradford Berenson. Berenson was in attendance because as a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, he could give insight as to how the swing-vote of the Supreme Court would likely decide the issue. You know who else in the White House Counsel's office at the time was also a former clerk of Justice Kennedy? Brett Kavanaugh... so if Berenson was there, then why not Kavanaugh? And if Kavanaugh was there, then he out-and-out lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings in 2006 and 2018. Not only that, but he compounded that lie by refusing to recuse himself when detainee cases challenging those policies came before him on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

This wasn't the type of meeting that a participant would soon forget - not just because of the subject matter in question, but also because the argument between Berenson and Addington became so heated that someone sitting outside the office actually opened the door and asked if everything was okay.

I want to see the MEMCON of that meeting... it'll list the participants who were in attendance.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm serious... it has nothing to do with the Ford allegations and everything to do with the credibility, fairness, and legal judgment of Judge Kavanaugh. On or about August 1, 2002 there was a meeting in Alberto Gonzales' office to debate the Bybee Torture Memo.... obviously Gonzales was there... so was his Deputy, Tim Flanigan, the Vice President's counsel David Addington and a member of the White House Counsel's office, Bradford Berenson. Berenson was in attendance because as a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, he could give insight as to how the swing-vote of the Supreme Court would likely decide the issue. You know who else in the White House Counsel's office at the time was also a former clerk of Justice Kennedy? Brett Kavanaugh... so if Berenson was there, then why not Kavanaugh? And if Kavanaugh was there, then he out-and-out lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings in 2006 and 2018. Not only that, but he compounded that lie by refusing to recuse himself when detainee cases challenging those policies came before him on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Click to expand...

Ah. So, this is the same perjury claim that has already been debunked? Good to go.

As a note: being asked about what a Justice's reaction is likely to be is not the same as working on a program.
 
cpwill said:
Ah. So, this is the same perjury claim that has already been debunked? Good to go.

As a note: being asked about what a Justice's reaction is likely to be is not the same as working on a program.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see documentary evidence that debunks the claim... to date, all I've seen is statements that it has been debunked because no evidence has come forward which supports it. Well, it's not going to come forward until the Republicans release it, is it?

Kavanaugh was asked by Senator Durbin whether he was aware of Bybee's memo prior to it's existence becoming public knowledge in 2004. Kavanaugh maintained that he had no knowledge of the memo prior to that time. So how could he offer an opinion on a memo in 2002 if he wasn't aware of it's existence until 2004?
 
Bucky said:
Thank you, Elizabeth. As a woman, it is important that all views are presented, not just the Democratic/feminist women.
Click to expand...

Conservatives need to learn where due process plays- a court of law- is Kavanaugh being tried in Federal Court??? nope.

He is in a POLITICAL confirmation hearing where no criminal conviction hangs in the balance. The question isn't if he should go to prison but rather sit on the Supreme Court.

The Republicant controlled Senate is setting the 'due process' of this hearing. They cringed at the optic of questioning the female witness on TV. They denied other females with allegations against the Judge. They refused to admit a lie detector test result or have Kavanaugh submit to one. Kavanaugh, when pressed to submit to a test seems confused where he was and tried to duck away saying the test wouldn't be useable in Federal Court. (again conservatives the Senate Hearing isn't federal court.) They refused to ask for an FBI investigation (claiming it wasn't necessary until Flake made it so.)

No this isn't a question of Constitutional due process but conservative dominated due process in the face of a populist movement- one populist movement keeps the conservatives in power (and puked a Trump into the White House) and another threatens to take power away from old white men...

Due Process is alive and well, no matter what Republicants lament to the contrary... :peace
 
cpwill said:
OTC. Republicans never accused Garland of anything without supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

They delayed for 300 days and then didn't even vote. When Kavanagh comes close to that THEN you can talk, but until then cons can STFU about delays.
 
Praxas said:
They delayed for 300 days and then didn't even vote.
Click to expand...

So, yeah, just as I said, they treated him better than Democrats are treating Kavanaugh. He wasn't abused at all.

When Kavanagh comes close to that THEN you can talk, but until then cons can STFU about delays.
Click to expand...

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".



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
OTC. Republicans never accused Garland of anything without supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Republicans didn't do their due diligence and give Merrick a fair hearing. Instead of advice and consent they delayed and ignored which is not what the constitution called for.
 
Moot said:
Republicans didn't do their due diligence and give Merrick a fair hearing. Instead of advice and consent they delayed and ignored which is not what the constitution called for.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bork was disqualified because of the role he played in firing Archibald Cox during the Watergate Saturday Night Massacre. If he had resigned along with Richardson and Ruckelshaus, he would have easily been confirmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom