What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe Bagadonuts said:
The above is true. Thanks fish.

Also, like fish, I have never attempted to rape anyone. But I have had the very miserable experience of being accused of serious wrongdoing by a woman and having to clear my name. I think that those of you who say it's so important that we simply take women at their word are seriously underestimating how important the presumption of innocence has been to this country's legal code. As important as it is that women are empowered and that victims of rape are given the help they need, it would be a major step in the wrong direction for our country to assume that anyone is guilty of anything, simply because they have been accused.
Click to expand...
We assume people are guilty in pretty much every other scenario of eye witness though. When's the last time someone identified a thief as an eye witness and people doubted them.

Also I'm guessing whatever you did to some women was just that something to be accused of...
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rt-says-retired-justice-stevens-idUSKCN1ME2P8

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the high court because of “potential bias” he showed in his recent Senate confirmation hearing.

Speaking to an audience of retirees in Boca Raton, Florida, Stevens, 98, said he started out believing that Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed, “but his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind.”

Stevens cited commentary by Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe and others suggesting Kavanaugh had raised doubts about his political impartiality when he asserted that sexual misconduct accusations he faced stemmed from an “orchestrated political hit” funded by left-wing groups seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”
Click to expand...

It feels like there's a million reasons out there to not advance this guy to the supreme court, and only one reason to at this point.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
The above is true. Thanks fish.

Also, like fish, I have never attempted to rape anyone. But I have had the very miserable experience of being accused of serious wrongdoing by a woman and having to clear my name. I think that those of you who say it's so important that we simply take women at their word are seriously underestimating how important the presumption of innocence has been to this country's legal code. As important as it is that women are empowered and that victims of rape are given the help they need, it would be a major step in the wrong direction for our country to assume that anyone is guilty of anything, simply because they have been accused.
Click to expand...
I get the presumption of innocence argument, and if this was a court of law I would 100% agree with you. When it comes to politics though, whether it's at the ballot box or regarding a political appointee, the same logic just doesn't apply. We make personal judgments about people's misdeeds all the time without proving their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Of course that doesn't mean that we should believe every allegation of any nature in all cases, but in this particular case there's enough smoke for any reasonable person to conclude that it's a good chance he's guilty.
That's not based only on the testimony and statements of his accusers, but also his own lack of honesty while being questioned.
 
Last edited:
Zombie said:
I get the presumption of innocence argument, and if this was a court of law I would 100% agree with you. When it comes to politics though, whether it's at the ballot box or regarding a political appointee, the same logic just doesn't apply. We make personal judgments about people's misdeeds all the time without proving their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Of course that doesn't mean that we should believe every allegation of any nature in all cases, but in this particular case there's enough smoke for any reasonable person to conclude that it's a good chance he's guilty.
That's not based only on the testimony and statements of his accusers, but also his own lack of honesty while being questioned.
Click to expand...

Not a court of law, presumption of innocence.

Every extended family I've watch has that one old creeper, that no one's proven he's done anything bad, but you don't exactly leave him alone with your kids.
 
Zombie said:
I get the presumption of innocence argument, and if this was a court of law I would 100% agree with you. When it comes to politics though, whether it's at the ballot box or regarding a political appointee, the same logic just doesn't apply. We make personal judgments about people's misdeeds all the time without proving their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Of course that doesn't mean that we should believe every allegation of any nature in all cases, but in this particular case there's enough smoke for any reasonable person to conclude that it's a good chance he's guilty.
That's not based only on the testimony and statements of his accusers, but also his own lack of honesty while being questioned.
Click to expand...

Thats ridiculous!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top