Look back.

"JoyV wrote:
Except due process is not a privilege, let alone a privilege for the few. Due process is for the rich and poor, the majority and minority. For all races, g****rs, for the religious of any religion or none, for those of any political party, or any other group you might identify with. DUE PROCESS! It is a RIGHT! Not a privilege!

Singularity wrote:
Obviously you have never been poor."

Although due process is not dependent on your financial state. How good a lawyer you may have is usually related to your financial state. But due process (innocent until proven guilty) is not relegated to the rich.

Think the Bundy case - as a more recent example.

Great flyover country deplorable put in an invidious position by a corrupt high profile Dem politician.

Injustice plays out in many spheres, but my experience over my entire life has been that corruption sits much heavier on the side of the Dems than on the conservative side.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7LJzAHKKc&feature=youtu.be

Government corruption makes my blood boil - as near as I can tell, Obama’s administration was as corrupt as we have ever seen. Trump, for all his faults that are flung around by the Dems and MSM - is genuinely trying to clean up the corruption.

That’s what will bring the red tsunami in Nov.

Please Dems, keep being loud mouthed, uncivil, r**ting, protesting, showing your corruption and ‘victimhood’ for v**ers to see. Have Pelosi, Waters and Holder keep publicising the actions and philosophies that Deplorables h**e - right up until 1st week of November.

Let’s swell the height of the red wave and leave no one in any doubt the America is being put back on the right track. The Conservative track.

I was looking for a liberal leaning examination of the issue, as you guys seem to really want to debate the topic with me taking the liberal stance. Why don't we all look at this guy's analysis and see where each our own actually differ from his and each other's?

We could go at it by maelstrom and excitedly type whole reams of responses confusedly at once, or we could try a disciplined approach of baby steps to digest it slowly.

If several agree to use this video, and no one has strong objections to the thread topic, (why partisans have differing views on Kavenaugh) being subsumed in this activity, why not start watching it and stop at the first point with which you disagree. Then post an explanation of the u-tuber's point followed by your point(s) of disagreement and supporting opinions/evidence. Stop after one post, each, on this assignment to let others catch up, and when stuff slows down, then we can cross talk about what has come up, and if it's a workable strategy and we are having fun, we could then continue and each post the first thing we agree with the u-tube guy about.....

Shall we agree anyone can drop out or in or back in at will? Some of you guys have jobs, right?

So, the mission, if you should accept, is a several step process, and I'm pretty toasted, so I'll be sure to embarrass myself by messing up...

You guys may laugh and tease....

We will have to keep each other on track. I'll accept any chastisement good naturedly, of course, as I've got a good natural buffer going....

Laissez les bons temps rouler?


https://youtu.be/Yl1VYF0avk4

I got through just a bit of this. It sounds reasonable but only because it sounds reasonable. And now he faces charges of judicial misconduct based upon what some see a behavior beneath a "judge" during the hearing. Preposterous. People see judges as being such upright and calm individuals and yet, having been in many a court room I can say, without question, judges only present this as a pretense. The SCOTUS judges have a job which is way different than other judges. It's an intellectual position based upon interpreting the constitution as it relates to the cases before them. I saw nothing about Kavanaugh during the hearing that was "beneath" a judge; rather, I saw a human being being subjected to outrageous accusations, nothing short of criminal accusations, defending his honor. Lets be hones, had he remained calm, the criticism would have been his lack of emotion or his seeming ambivalence to the "charges;" that he would have been much more angry had he actually not been "guilty" of the accusations.

There was not a shred of democratic honesty in that hearing, not one shred. And now they continue. I continue to believe that his was a defining moment for the democrats. They will pay dearly for it in November, I think!

I got through just a bit of this. It sounds reasonable but only because it sounds reasonable. And now he faces charges of judicial misconduct based upon what some see a behavior beneath a "judge" during the hearing. Preposterous. People see judges as being such upright and calm individuals and yet, having been in many a court room I can say, without question, judges only present this as a pretense. The SCOTUS judges have a job which is way different than other judges. It's an intellectual position based upon interpreting the constitution as it relates to the cases before them. I saw nothing about Kavanaugh during the hearing that was "beneath" a judge; rather, I saw a human being being subjected to outrageous accusations, nothing short of criminal accusations, defending his honor. Lets be hones, had he remained calm, the criticism would have been his lack of emotion or his seeming ambivalence to the "charges;" that he would have been much more angry had he actually not been "guilty" of the accusations.

There was not a shred of democratic honesty in that hearing, not one shred. And now they continue. I continue to believe that his was a defining moment for the democrats. They will pay dearly for it in November, I think!