One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Kavanaugh hearings turned into a joke
Page <<first <prev 9 of 13 next> last>>
Sep 5, 2018 15:38:11   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
This article brings up some reasons why hearings should be delayed:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/unresolved-recusal-issues-require-a-pause-in-the-kavanaugh-hearings/?utm_campaign=Governance%20Studies&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=65694541

It starts out:
This paper explains why the Constitution as originally designed by the framers requires the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to be put on hold. It takes no view on his ultimate confirmation. But as one of the authors has elsewhere explained,[1] it offends the structure the framers created for a president who is facing mounting personal liability under our Constitution and laws to choose one of the judges in his own case.
This article brings up some reasons why hearings s... (show quote)
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 15:42:32   #
Babsan
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.


Agree!

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 15:45:22   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
This article brings up some reasons why hearings should be delayed:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/unresolved-recusal-issues-require-a-pause-in-the-kavanaugh-hearings/?utm_campaign=Governance%20Studies&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=65694541

It starts out:
This paper explains why the Constitution as originally designed by the framers requires the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to be put on hold. It takes no view on his ultimate confirmation. But as one of the authors has elsewhere explained,[1] it offends the structure the framers created for a president who is facing mounting personal liability under our Constitution and laws to choose one of the judges in his own case.
This article brings up some reasons why hearings s... (show quote)


What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.

Reply
 
 
Sep 5, 2018 15:54:36   #
Fit2BTied Loc: Texas
 
padremike wrote:
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypothetical issues, like:

(from the article)
Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability;
Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice;
Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony;
Whether a president can be criminally indicted;
Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and
Related civil matters involving a president’s personal interests.

It's amazing to me that we've been able to appoint 113 justices to the USSC without answering these questions, but now they matter??

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 15:54:54   #
peter11937 Loc: NYS
 
proud republican wrote:
Almost 500,000 pages to date....What the hell else do they want!!!


Egg in their beer...

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 16:09:16   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
I suppose you were equally disturbed when Republicans stalled votes on President Obama's appointments?
The Republicans did it within Senate rules, exactly as Democrats in power did under a GOP POTUS. It was sleasy, but within the rules.

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 16:27:29   #
Holdenbeach4u Loc: Holden Beach , NC
 
Here is what will prevent Cancer ever growing in your body ! Drink one oz of organic vinegar and you may add one oz of natural honey into 6 oz of filter water everyday the rest of your life !

Reply
 
 
Sep 5, 2018 16:32:40   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
McConnell said when asked by the news media about this quote that he was talking about Obama's stated policies and goals. Exactly what I thought when I heard him say it. Unlike some people I tried to vet Obama before I voted. He was a little known Senator with hardly any accomplishments. Before that, a community organizer. After listening to the faux president articulate what he stood for I wanted him to fail also. His stated goals: (Have to give him credit, he didn't lie) Universal healthcare, more government control, infringe upon 2nd amendment rights, redistribution of wealth, and lead the war on terror from behind while apologizing for the US all over the world. You may have been all for that. Many are. I am not. Neither was McConnell. So, it was no secret you're just being a typical arrogant liberal with your snide comments.
acknowledgeurma wrote:
And what context was that? The context of him saying something in secret that he wanted to keep secret?

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 16:46:08   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Babsan wrote:
NO,because they didn't start a circus of Brainless clowns highly paid by America Hating Communists to make a mockery of the process.You can stall but as NORMAL human beings not Democrat violent feral scum



Reply
Sep 5, 2018 16:55:37   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
I've been trying to stay updated on the proceedings. It seems like Judge Kavanaugh was not "read into" much of what Sen Leahy and others are asking about. Let's be honest acknowledgeurma, as we've seen since the inauguration, democrats have show their mastery of delay tactics and slow-walking in an effort to hamstring President Trump's agenda and appointments. I tip my hat because republicans could never be as adept, and certainly never as unified as the democrats in this endeavor. Saul A. taught you all well.
I've been trying to stay updated on the proceeding... (show quote)

Regarding Democrats delaying tactics:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/14/are-trumps-judicial-nominees-really-being-confirmed-at-a-record-pace-the-answer-is-complicated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49605ea32689

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 17:05:11   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.

I'm not sure what argument you are making... Are you saying, that only people who see no bias, are allowed to ask for a judge to recuse?

And how is any decision made regarding government not political?

Reply
 
 
Sep 5, 2018 17:20:43   #
acknowledgeurma
 
padremike wrote:
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.

I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding of the role of "presumption of innocence" in our legal system.
Do the police arrest people because they presume they are innocent?
Do prosecutors prosecute because they presume the defendant is innocent?
We hope that judges and jurors will presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty beyond the amount of doubt required for the class of crime.

As a private citizen, I may presume anything I want. If I am assigned the public office of juror, I am required to suppress the effects of any of my presumptions (e.g. why bring to trial, one who is innocent).
I think, in our system, a juror is not even supposed to consider their own personal knowledge of the case, but rely only on information presented at trial.

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 17:30:23   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding of the role of "presumption of innocence" in our legal system.
Do the police arrest people because they presume they are innocent?
Do prosecutors prosecute because they presume the defendant is innocent?
We hope that judges and jurors will presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty beyond the amount of doubt required for the class of crime.

As a private citizen, I may presume anything I want. If I am assigned the public office of juror, I am required to suppress the effects of any of my presumptions (e.g. why bring to trial, one who is innocent).
I think, in our system, a juror is not even supposed to consider their own personal knowledge of the case, but rely only on information presented at trial.
I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding o... (show quote)


Actually, you confirmed in your reply that you do not believe a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given what you believe true this Wednesday, is President Trump guilty of any charges of which he is accused?

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 17:31:28   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Fit2BTied wrote:
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypothetical issues, like:

(from the article)
Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability;
Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice;
Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony;
Whether a president can be criminally indicted;
Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and
Related civil matters involving a president’s personal interests.

It's amazing to me that we've been able to appoint 113 justices to the USSC without answering these questions, but now they matter??
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypot... (show quote)

What exactly are you unclear about, regarding these issues?
Perhaps, because all our previous presidents have not been as remarkable as President Trump, these question have not come up?

Reply
Sep 5, 2018 17:34:14   #
acknowledgeurma
 
Super Dave wrote:
The Republicans did it within Senate rules, exactly as Democrats in power did under a GOP POTUS. It was sleasy, but within the rules.

Hey, if you don't like the rules, change them - if you can. It all depends on how the power lies. Might makes the rules.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 9 of 13 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.