I simply mean this is not a court, there is no prosecutor (regardless of her title). Innocent until proven guilty is not an operative principle in this setting. The R's want this to look like one - it isn't. Hence "gambit".youthathletics wrote:As opposed to the Democrats who believe you are guilty until proven innocent. Come on man, you are better than that.jhu72 wrote:I think what is clear is that the Republicans are going to attempt to play the innocent till proven guilty gambit.
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine
Re: SCOTUS
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
-
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:39 pm
Re: SCOTUS
You have the Catholic church under the gun for 1000's of accusations. No doubt a mixed bag of truth but the point is, why is it so hard to believe this guy assaulted her?
Re: SCOTUS
You're an idiot. Who cares how you feel? I deal with FACTS. There are no facts tying Kav to any of these accusations. Hope someone makes up sexual assault claims against you, the media drags you and your family through the mud and see how you like it. All based on accusations and adhering to the stupidity of "guilty til proven innocent".DMac wrote:Get your coffee and bagels fellas, show's about to begin. I hope BK goes down, believe he got away with a lot of stuff as a privileged prep and college boy but it's caught up with him. Too long ago to be held accountable now? Don't know, don't care. Had he been held accountable/called out back then would he be where he is now? Payback is a complain, eh?
The Dems blew this one. Your sleazeball charade is the laughstock of America. Good luck in the midterms. You are going to need it.
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
Re: SCOTUS
Because there are absolutely no FACTS pointing to he did anything to these women. Also, Democrats are known for making victims political pawns for their own gain. It is a political hit job. How can't you see that? Some of you on here really are morons.seriously? wrote:You have the Catholic church under the gun for 1000's of accusations. No doubt a mixed bag of truth but the point is, why is it so hard to believe this guy assaulted her?
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
Re: SCOTUS
Man. She looks nervous as hell. Fast breathing. Fogging glasses. Look of doubt. She just realized how real it's going to get.
Lock her ass up for lying under oath.
Lock her ass up for lying under oath.
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy
Re: SCOTUS
Calling it a con job means he believes the women are lying. What could then possibly sway him?
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
-
- Posts: 34133
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Hell yeah Manuel!Bandito wrote:Man. She looks nervous as hell. Fast breathing. Fogging glasses. Look of doubt. She just realized how real it's going to get.
Lock her ass up for lying under oath.
“I wish you would!”
-
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:24 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Interesting perspective, since Sen. Feinstein just complained that the Rs refused to allow other witnesses related to this situation besides Dr. Ford. Sounds like she wants it to be a trial - at least in the court of public opinion. I also couldn’t help but notice her attempt to influence the public court whenever she mentioned Ford it was “Dr. Ford”, but Judge Kavenaugh was “Brett Kavenaugh” or simply “Kavenaugh”.jhu72 wrote:I simply mean this is not a court, there is no prosecutor (regardless of her title). Innocent until proven guilty is not an operative principle in this setting. The R's want this to look like one - it isn't. Hence "gambit".youthathletics wrote:As opposed to the Democrats who believe you are guilty until proven innocent. Come on man, you are better than that.jhu72 wrote:I think what is clear is that the Republicans are going to attempt to play the innocent till proven guilty gambit.
They are all the same. Feinstein sits there and says all the right things about not dismissing the story of the attacked, but did that very thing when it comes to accused Ds, and our two most recent presidential candidates have a history of doing the same.
Edit - Add: Shame on those who are attempting to suggest there’s a connection between Arpaio and the prosecutor who’ll be questioning Dr. Ford because they happened to both be Maricopa County, AZ officials.
-
- Posts: 34133
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Honest question.... outside of the courtroom are judges referred to as "Judge XYZ"? I do know Dr. "this" or Dr. "that" is a reference outside of the hospital / classroom. I am not interested in what should be done at this hearing as a show of respect but I was just wondering what is normal. I can learn something today.SCLaxAttack wrote:Interesting perspective, since Sen. Feinstein just complained that the Rs refused to allow other witnesses related to this situation besides Dr. Ford. Sounds like she wants it to be a trial - at least in the court of public opinion. I also couldn’t help but notice her attempt to influence the public court whenever she mentioned Ford it was “Dr. Ford”, but Judge Kavenaugh was “Brett Kavenaugh” or simply “Kavenaugh”.jhu72 wrote:I simply mean this is not a court, there is no prosecutor (regardless of her title). Innocent until proven guilty is not an operative principle in this setting. The R's want this to look like one - it isn't. Hence "gambit".youthathletics wrote:As opposed to the Democrats who believe you are guilty until proven innocent. Come on man, you are better than that.jhu72 wrote:I think what is clear is that the Republicans are going to attempt to play the innocent till proven guilty gambit.
They are all the same. Feinstein sits there and says all the right things about not dismissing the story of the attacked, but did that very thing when it comes to accused Ds, and our two most recent presidential candidates have a history of doing the same.
“I wish you would!”
Re: SCOTUS
This attitude stems from a classmate and teammate of mine. (from 7th grade on, we were the only two 7th graders to make the 7 & 8th grade hoops team, both played attack in HS) Lawyer's son, liar, manipulator, cheater, bully (wasn't with me cuz he watched me send his doctor's son friend home with a bloody nose when the two of them thought they'd pick on the new kid in town...I didn't know they were the tough guys) whose father got all of his little shenanigansjhu72 wrote:Interesting perspective. What I find interesting is that this would normally be the reaction of most of Trump's base (know you are not a Trump supporter). Elitist snob thinks he is above us, looking down. Clearly not what they are saying about him.DMac wrote:Get your coffee and bagels fellas, show's about to begin. I hope BK goes down, believe he got away with a lot of stuff as a privileged prep and college boy but it's caught up with him. Too long ago to be held accountable now? Don't know, don't care. Had he been held accountable/called out back then would he be where he is now? Payback is a complain, eh?
taken care of. What do you figure he is today? Yup, a judge. GTown grad, smart kid, got a rotten core, has no business judging people (my classmates would say the same). This BK stuff reminds me of him, sound like two peas in a pod.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Isn't the real evidence of the majority's disinclination to "get to the bottom of this" the inexplicable absence of Judge, no subpoena of Judge. He's been identified; everything about his young life seems not inconsistent with Dr. Ford's account; and he could be available. But Orrin Hatch and his pals haven't lifted a finger to get him there. Not even a cursory effort to investigate. The "gambit" here is the strategy of "OK, we'll listen; then we'll vote and confirm."
Re: SCOTUS
I am sorry, but doctors went to medical school.....Typical Lax Dad wrote:Honest question.... outside of the courtroom are judges referred to as "Judge XYZ"? I do know Dr. "this" or Dr. "that" is a reference outside of the hospital / classroom. I am not interested in what should be done at this hearing as a show of respect but I was just wondering what is normal. I can learn something today.SCLaxAttack wrote:Interesting perspective, since Sen. Feinstein just complained that the Rs refused to allow other witnesses related to this situation besides Dr. Ford. Sounds like she wants it to be a trial - at least in the court of public opinion. I also couldn’t help but notice her attempt to influence the public court whenever she mentioned Ford it was “Dr. Ford”, but Judge Kavenaugh was “Brett Kavenaugh” or simply “Kavenaugh”.jhu72 wrote:I simply mean this is not a court, there is no prosecutor (regardless of her title). Innocent until proven guilty is not an operative principle in this setting. The R's want this to look like one - it isn't. Hence "gambit".youthathletics wrote:As opposed to the Democrats who believe you are guilty until proven innocent. Come on man, you are better than that.jhu72 wrote:I think what is clear is that the Republicans are going to attempt to play the innocent till proven guilty gambit.
They are all the same. Feinstein sits there and says all the right things about not dismissing the story of the attacked, but did that very thing when it comes to accused Ds, and our two most recent presidential candidates have a history of doing the same.
STILL somewhere back in the day....
...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
Re: SCOTUS
Judge Napolitano says Grassley’s idiotic 5-minute format has hamstrung the prosecutor’s interrogation of Dr. Ford. I wonder will that help Kavanaugh dodge the Democrats in the afternoon.
Last edited by Trinity on Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
Re: SCOTUS
Agreed. The prosecutor’s demeanor is pretty good for this forum, but the five minutes on and off is really throwing her off her game. So far she hasn’t scored any points.
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Agreed. The Democrats must've insisted on getting their five minutes every other five minutes, no?
Re: SCOTUS
I think it’s there for Kavanaugh later, to limit the drill down on his yearbook stuff.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
Re: SCOTUS
... and then invoke "innocent until proven guilty" -- no one proved him guilty (or will in this venue as organized) - which is true - but a total red herring.seacoaster wrote:Isn't the real evidence of the majority's disinclination to "get to the bottom of this" the inexplicable absence of Judge, no subpoena of Judge. He's been identified; everything about his young life seems not inconsistent with Dr. Ford's account; and he could be available. But Orrin Hatch and his pals haven't lifted a finger to get him there. Not even a cursory effort to investigate. The "gambit" here is the strategy of "OK, we'll listen; then we'll vote and confirm."
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Re: SCOTUS
Actually, Kavanaugh will likely get the worst of it, if this same "prosecutor" questions him rather than the republicans. He won't get the break of having someone friendly to him asking questions. Everyone will be skeptical of him (Kavanaugh), if this "prosecutor" plays it straight.Trinity wrote:Judge Napolitano says Grassley’s idiotic 5-minute format has hamstrung the prosecutor’s interrogation of Dr. Ford. I wonder will that help Kavanaugh dodge the Democrats in the afternoon.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
-
- Posts: 34133
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Thanks. So are you saying that Judges are or are not referred to as Judge "XYZ" outside of the courtroom? I would think so but I am not sure. In academia, it sort of depends. I don't believe lawyers are referred to counselor or attorney so and so? What is the protocol?HooDat wrote:I am sorry, but doctors went to medical school.....Typical Lax Dad wrote:Honest question.... outside of the courtroom are judges referred to as "Judge XYZ"? I do know Dr. "this" or Dr. "that" is a reference outside of the hospital / classroom. I am not interested in what should be done at this hearing as a show of respect but I was just wondering what is normal. I can learn something today.SCLaxAttack wrote:Interesting perspective, since Sen. Feinstein just complained that the Rs refused to allow other witnesses related to this situation besides Dr. Ford. Sounds like she wants it to be a trial - at least in the court of public opinion. I also couldn’t help but notice her attempt to influence the public court whenever she mentioned Ford it was “Dr. Ford”, but Judge Kavenaugh was “Brett Kavenaugh” or simply “Kavenaugh”.jhu72 wrote:I simply mean this is not a court, there is no prosecutor (regardless of her title). Innocent until proven guilty is not an operative principle in this setting. The R's want this to look like one - it isn't. Hence "gambit".youthathletics wrote:As opposed to the Democrats who believe you are guilty until proven innocent. Come on man, you are better than that.jhu72 wrote:I think what is clear is that the Republicans are going to attempt to play the innocent till proven guilty gambit.
They are all the same. Feinstein sits there and says all the right things about not dismissing the story of the attacked, but did that very thing when it comes to accused Ds, and our two most recent presidential candidates have a history of doing the same.
“I wish you would!”
Re: SCOTUS
Dr. Ford is clinically insane. She wanted the hearing delayed because she was afraid of flying. Now she admits under oath she flies all the time and flew to the hearing. She is a liar plain and simple. She should get used to 3 square a day in a cell.
Farfromgeneva is a sissy soy boy