Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 15
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8119
Reputation: 325Reputation: 325
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:32 pm    Post subject: Judge Brett Kavanaugh Nominated for Supreme Court Seat Reply with quote

Quote:
President Donald Trump announced Monday evening that he had selected Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, his second choice in less than two years.

“Judge Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service,” Trump said in a televised address from the east room of the White House. “There is no one in America qualified for this position and more deserving.”

The 53-year-old Kavanaugh, who clerked for Kennedy and who currently sits on the U.S. court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court, emphasized in his remarks accepting the nomination the importance of judicial independence. He also stressed that the constitution must be interpreted “as written – informed by history and tradition and precedent.”


http://time.com/5333655/donald.....ourt-pick/
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8119
Reputation: 325Reputation: 325
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While there was going to be outrage no matter who was selected;

I figured the President would have opted for someone like Judge Amy Coney Barrett who is 46 and Catholic now that the confirmation only requires a simple majority.

In terms of qualifications;
There is little argument that based solely on experience that Judge Kavanaugh is qualified, however there is also little argument that he isn't a Conservative. I expect the next two weeks to be about nothing other that Roe V. Wade or the theory that Kennedy picked his own replacement, before he is ultimately confirmed.

All eyes are on the Democrat Senators from Montana, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6202
Reputation: 295.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some comments I heard explaining the choice ... after admitting that all are good candidates ... it seems consensus opinion is that Kavanaugh would he easiest to get in, with the mid-term elections underway ...

He has a known record for writing narrow decisions that stay close to the written law, so he's dependably in the strict constructionist camp.

I suspect that Trump is thinking of Barrett for another appointment if he gets one.

I was surprised to hear so much concern about Roe vs Wade. There does seem to be a set of conservative judges who want to overturn it. It seems to go to the line of legal reasoning that supports that decision.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6202
Reputation: 295.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some comments I heard explaining the choice ... after admitting that all are good candidates ... it seems consensus opinion is that Kavanaugh would he easiest to get in, with the mid-term elections underway ...

He has a known record for writing narrow decisions that stay close to the written law, so he's dependably in the strict constructionist camp.

I suspect that Trump is thinking of Barrett for another appointment if he gets one.

I was surprised to hear so much concern about Roe vs Wade. I thought it was fear-mongering. There does seem to be a set of conservative judges who want to overturn it. It seems to go to the line of legal reasoning that supports that decision that is part of the reason.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6202
Reputation: 295.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you believe this started over 10 weeks ago, etc etc etc ... and the Democrats are trying to run out the clock.

Quote:
Kavanaugh Will Never Get A Fair Hearing: The Federalist
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/18/2018 -

Thanks to an unprovable allegation of sexual assault, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will "never get a fair hearing," According to The Federalist's David Harsanyi, who writes: "If you’re a man, a single uncorroborated account that dates back to 1982 is all your political critics need to accuse you of attempted rape," adding "There is also no possible outcome in which Democrats will concede Kavanaugh’s innocence, or even concede that we can’t really know what transpired on that night 36 years ago."

No matter how many hearings held, and no matter how many of Kavanaugh's classmates and ex-girlfriends go on record to attest to his good character, and despite the fact that most sexual predators have a pattern of bad behavior - it does not matter. Kavanaugh is now forever tainted with nebulous allegations from a woman with a shaky story.

Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has a hazy recollection of the incident, admitting she doesn't specifically remember the year it happened, where the incident occurred, whose house it was, how she got there, and whether Kavanaugh and a witness (who denies the account) were already upstairs when she went up, and how she got home that night.

And as The Federalist writes: "Whether Ford’s accusation is true or not, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein orchestrated the leak and subsequent release of Ford’s letter, not merely to sink Kavanaugh and level accusations in a way that would make it difficult for the judge to defend himself, but also to try and delay Republican efforts to confirm any nominee until after the midterms."

In short, a judge who by all accounts has been a model citizen - whose family was left in tears during vitriolic confirmation hearings, is nothing more than a disposable pawn to Democratic legislators. [....]
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-18/kavanaugh-will-never-get-fair-hearing-federalist
Emphasis in the original, which reviews the whole nomination process.

If this is the easiest for the Trump crew to get the job, what would they have thrown at the more difficult ones?

I think even the Democrats are ashamed of this. Let's not exonerate the Republicans, who sabotaged Obama's pick, Garland ???. True, the Republicans seem less able to march in this parade, and only some of them show up, and they lack the real killer instinct that the Alinsky-ites enjoy indulging so much.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1289
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it dreadful that the Dems are doing just what the Reps did under Obama. Delaying a vote until the Senate changes.

Horrible.

Who could ever have seen that happening.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9430
Reputation: 306.9Reputation: 306.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laura Ingraham: I've known Kavanaugh for 25 years -- If this can happen to him, I tremble for our country



Laura IngrahamOPINION By Laura Ingraham | Fox News



The Ingraham Angle -Monday, September 17

On Monday, Laura Ingraham reacts to the accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh coming forward. Then, Laura exposes the Democrats' hypocrisy on the accusations of Kavanaugh. Plus, coverage on President Trump declassifying Russia investigation documents.

It’s 1991, all over again.


By now, most of you are familiar with the eleventh hour charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto research psychologist is claiming that when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, he made unwanted advances to her at a boozy house party. She claims that he tried to force himself upon her.

Kavanaugh released a statement today emphatically denying the charges for a second time, saying "This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes -- to her or to anyone." But the 10 Democrats on the judiciary committee were unanimous in their calls to delay Kavanaugh's scheduled Thursday vote. And some weak-kneed Republicans, no shock there, like Flake and Corker, joined those calls.


But there are holes in Ms. Ford's version of events. The 2012 notes from her psychotherapist mentioned four men involved in the assault on Ford.

Now, the accuser says it was only two men. Nowhere does Kavanaugh's name appear in those notes. And both Kavanaugh and the only other witness deny that the event ever occurred.

Ford claims that she decided to come forward at this moment out of "civic responsibility." But the timing, suffice it to say, is curious. Senator Dianne Feinstein had a letter from Ford detailing these allegations back in July. But she chose not to share it with the FBI or to raise it in 32 hours of public hearings, and of course, one hour of a private meeting with Kavanaugh. So why?



Well, this all has the whiff of a political smear masquerading as a sexual assault allegation, one that 36 years later, let's face it, cannot either be proven or disproven. It is impossible to prove a negative and questioning Ms. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh on this matter, it is unlikely to reveal anything new.

But, still, this afternoon, judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley announced that he's calling a hearing a week from today, giving both Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford an opportunity to be heard.

But think about this for a moment. To furnish Democrats with another big top for their divisive circus may actually be a mistake for Republicans.

Democrats have been salivating for another Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill like spectacle to use as leverage against Republicans in the fall and maybe get some more female voters while they're at it. Here is minority leader Chuck Schumer:

"I think the allegations of Professor Ford are extremely credible. She took a lie detector test.

She talked to [about] this to her therapist because they were having family counseling in part because of what happened to her five years ago and told all the details.

And third, to come out and say something like this puts you and your family through incredible scrutiny, people throw brick bats at you and everything else. She didn't do it on a whim. I don't think she did it for political reasons so she has a great deal of credibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

No one knows anything about this yet apparently. She hasn't testified, but Chuck Schumer is supremely confident.

But the very idea that Schumer or anyone else who is going to be able to get to the bottom of a 36-year-old allegation is ludicrous. And Chuck, as you know, lie detectors aren't admissible in court for a reason.

Lindsey Graham made a point, by the way earlier today. He said, "It is a little odd that she even decided to take a lie detector test, but she wanted to remain anonymous."

Well, the fact is, there is no way to ensure that Brett Kavanaugh will receive due process here because allegations such as this, they should have been examined in any of the six FBI background checks that Kavanaugh underwent.

But instead, this was dropped less than a week before his committee vote.

And as such, a lot of reasonable people can conclude that this is all part of a political hit job, a well orchestrated, Alinsky-ite maneuver timed to cause maximum damage to Kavanaugh, to President Trump and the midterms for the Republicans. -- Put maximum political pressure on the Republicans especially when you have people like Corker and Flake. They are not running for re-election, what are they supposed to do?

Anita Hill this weekend dropped a statement designed to insulate the accuser from any criticism, frankly, any meaningful questioning. And box in any male Republican questioning Ford in an open forum.

She wrote the following, "Given the seriousness of these allegations, the government needs to find a fair and neutral way for complaints to be investigated. I've seen firsthand what happens when such a process is weaponized against an accuser and no one should have to endure that again."

Christine Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, echoed Anita Hill's thoughts and claims that her client is willing to appear before the Judiciary Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBRA KATZ, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: She's willing to cooperate. What she is not willing to do is to be part of this blood-letting that happens in Washington. We only need to look at the Anita Hill hearings to know what that's going to look like and that is not a fair way to get at the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Think about this, fair? What is a fair way?

So, anyone has the freedom, a male or a female, has freedom to drop damaging allegations just days before a confirmation vote, when someone has been in public service for years and years and years, undergoing six background checks. And then outside the normal procedures, they can drop a letter anonymously, have it leak out a few weeks later and they don't get any criticism?

You can't examine motives. You can't examine maybe holes in the allegations. You can't examine any political affiliations.

This is insanity. This does a disservice to the Senate, it does a disservice to the process and it does a disservice to Brett Kavanaugh, given everything he's given to this country in public service.

And Republicans who buckle to this type of smear and the type of frankly intimidation game, they don't deserve to be in the Senate for another minute. Any senator who would allow this to happen to a nominee of Kavanaugh's experience and integrity, should look at his or her own.

I've had the great privilege of knowing Kavanaugh for 25 years. I've known him socially and in professional circles. And I've known a lot of people in this town -- in both parties. But few -- I can probably count them on two hands -- with his character, his intellect and his professionalism.

I don't say this because he is someone I support for the court, I say this because I know him. And if this can happen to him, I tremble for this country and this process and for any man or woman, who find themselves up for a big job, who didn't spend his or her teenage years in a convent or a monastery.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....untry.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9430
Reputation: 306.9Reputation: 306.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dems make new demands on Kavanaugh hearing, as Republicans cry foul




Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News



Kavanaugh confirmation chaos as hearing with accuser planned

Lawmakers seek last-minute hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and his sexual assault accuser Christine Ford; Peter Doocy reports on the latest from Capitol Hill.

Democratic senators on Tuesday escalated their demands regarding a hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh -- suggesting Monday's scheduled public session with the Supreme Court nominee and his accuser is not enough, calling for more witnesses and more time for the FBI to dig into the allegations.


Much remains up in the air, with the allegation threatening to sideline the nomination days before Kavanaugh was slated for a floor vote.

Right now, the FBI apparently is not investigating further despite Democratic demands. And it's not clear the hearing announced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is even going forward. He scheduled a hearing for Monday, but said accuser Christine Blasey Ford has not responded to the invitation and threatened to nix the session if she doesn't.


Ford alleges that in high school, Kavanaugh pinned her down, tried to remove her bathing suit and put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream. Kavanaugh denies it.

But as Republicans try to navigate the 11th-hour bombshell, they're accusing Democrats of playing politics, by first sitting on the allegations and now making new demands regarding a hearing.

In letters Tuesday, Democrats on the committee said Republicans were “rushing forward” and the FBI should first perform a background investigation as it did in 1991 when then-nominee Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. Thomas was eventually confirmed.

Judge Jeanine on Feinstein Letter


“As you know, the FBI is not being asked to perform a criminal investigation; rather it is being asked to do an evaluation of the allegations as part of its review of Judge Kavanaugh’s record,” a letter to Grassley said. “Like in 1991, this is an important step in providing the Committee the facts.”

The Democrats also called for more witnesses to be questioned under oath, including Mark Judge, whom Ford identified as in the room during the alleged assault, and “others that might be identified through the FBI’s investigation or subsequent due diligence by the Committee itself.”

KAVANAUGH'S MOTHER IS JUDGE WHO DISMISSED A FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST ACCUSER FORD'S PARENTS

The same Democrats wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House Counsel Don McGahn requesting they reopen the background investigation.

President Trump, however, said Tuesday that he doesn't think the bureau should be involved "because they don’t want to be involved."

He reiterated that he considers a "delay" in Kavanaugh's confirmation process to be acceptable, but complained that committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sat on the allegations for months -- apparently because Ford initially did not want to come forward.

"Why wouldn't you bring this up when he is sitting in her office for an extended period of time?" Trump asked.

Feinstein, meanwhile, put out a statement underscoring there had been 22 witnesses at the 1991 Anita Hill hearing, pressing for more witnesses in this case.

“What about other witnesses like Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge? What about individuals who were previously told about this incident?” she said. “What about experts who can speak to the effects of this kind of trauma on a victim? This is another attempt by Republicans to rush this nomination and not fully vet Judge Kavanaugh.”


The Supreme Court nominee has nothing to hide from Democrats trying to tear him down, White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp tells 'America's Newsroom.'

Hill herself weighed in via an op-ed for The New York Times, making a similar point.

"That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging," she wrote. "Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges."


The increased demands by Democrats are likely to feed into Republican claims that Democrats are using the allegation to slow-walk the nomination, as the party fights to regain control of the Senate in the midterms.

The rising tensions were on display at dueling press conferences later in the day, where senators from both parties doubled down on their positions.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said "the White House is victimizing" Ford and she has "no obligation to participate in a smearing of her and her family.”

Yet on the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., said that Ford’s lawyers have not responded and she could testify in a closed session if she wants.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor that the Democrats “chose to play politics and keep [the accusation] secret through the entirety of Judge Kavanaugh’s regular confirmation process.”

“As [Cornyn] said yesterday, the blatant malpractice demonstrated by our colleagues across the aisle will not stop the Senate from moving forward in a responsible manner,” he said.

But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., backed his colleagues' calls for the FBI to reopen its background investigation and be given time to do so, saying otherwise it would be a “he said, she said” back-and-forth.

GRASSLEY SUGGESTS LAST-MINUTE KAVANAUGH HEARING COULD BE CANCELED IF ACCUSER DOESN'T ACCEPT INVITE

“It will make the hearing far more valuable because once the members see what the witnesses have said to the FBI, they’ll be able to ask much better questions,” he said.

He said that senators and witnesses “need time to prepare testimony and senators who are not on the committee need time to review and consider that testimony once given.”


“Let’s call all the relevant witnesses, not just the two selected by Chairman Grassley, who did not want to call the hearings to begin with,” he said. “Let’s do this fair and full and right.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch’s, R-Utah, office accused Democrats of “moving goalposts” with their new demands.

“It is hard to take complaints about process seriously when Senate Democrats bottled up serious information until the most politically opportune time,” his office said. “[Grassley] is doing everything he can to get to the truth and they keep moving goalposts.”


Hatch, though, also opened the door to the possibility of outside witnesses appearing before the committee. And while Grassley suggested he could nix the hearing if Ford does not show, Hatch said he thinks it could happen regardless.

Earlier Tuesday, Grassley said that his office had reached out to Ford and her attorneys several times, but had heard nothing back.

“We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or four times by email and we have not heard from them, and it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show. He also said if Ford did not accept the invitation to testify, he saw no reason to hold a hearing.

In a statement, Grassley’s office noted that the Democrats had not acted on the allegations “for more than six weeks” and said they did not join in on a bipartisan call with Kavanaugh on Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-foul.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9430
Reputation: 306.9Reputation: 306.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the vote planned for Thursday has been cancelled and its now unclear when he could be confirmed or put to a vote )



19 min ago

The Kavanaugh vote has officially been canceled



Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has officially canceled a committee vote on Brett Kavaunagh's Supreme Court nomination. The vote was scheduled for Thursday.

Here's the notice on the committee's website:


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegation-dle/h_9ad5f54f56191d6c23fc67a01bdced63
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9430
Reputation: 306.9Reputation: 306.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Can you believe this started over 10 weeks ago, etc etc etc ... and the Democrats are trying to run out the clock.

Quote:
Kavanaugh Will Never Get A Fair Hearing: The Federalist
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/18/2018 -

Thanks to an unprovable allegation of sexual assault, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will "never get a fair hearing," According to The Federalist's David Harsanyi, who writes: "If you’re a man, a single uncorroborated account that dates back to 1982 is all your political critics need to accuse you of attempted rape," adding "There is also no possible outcome in which Democrats will concede Kavanaugh’s innocence, or even concede that we can’t really know what transpired on that night 36 years ago."

No matter how many hearings held, and no matter how many of Kavanaugh's classmates and ex-girlfriends go on record to attest to his good character, and despite the fact that most sexual predators have a pattern of bad behavior - it does not matter. Kavanaugh is now forever tainted with nebulous allegations from a woman with a shaky story.

Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has a hazy recollection of the incident, admitting she doesn't specifically remember the year it happened, where the incident occurred, whose house it was, how she got there, and whether Kavanaugh and a witness (who denies the account) were already upstairs when she went up, and how she got home that night.

And as The Federalist writes: "Whether Ford’s accusation is true or not, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein orchestrated the leak and subsequent release of Ford’s letter, not merely to sink Kavanaugh and level accusations in a way that would make it difficult for the judge to defend himself, but also to try and delay Republican efforts to confirm any nominee until after the midterms."

In short, a judge who by all accounts has been a model citizen - whose family was left in tears during vitriolic confirmation hearings, is nothing more than a disposable pawn to Democratic legislators. [....]
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-18/kavanaugh-will-never-get-fair-hearing-federalist
Emphasis in the original, which reviews the whole nomination process.

If this is the easiest for the Trump crew to get the job, what would they have thrown at the more difficult ones?

I think even the Democrats are ashamed of this. Let's not exonerate the Republicans, who sabotaged Obama's pick, Garland ???. True, the Republicans seem less able to march in this parade, and only some of them show up, and they lack the real killer instinct that the Alinsky-ites enjoy indulging so much.




I find it disturbing that someone is allowed to make such accusations to begin with , especially against someone nominated to be a supreme court justice .


at this point she doesn't even seem to have any evidence to back up her claim , there is no smoking gun to prove anything about her story . in the court of law to prove a sexual assault case there is certain standards of evidence required . this case is far below the standard required to get a conviction .


she hasn't managed to provide 1 piece of physical evidence to back up her claim , no pictures of her and Kavanaugh together . no eye witnesses who can place him and her at the party that night . at this point there doesn't seem to be anything


but she went to the trouble of getting a high priced lawyer and apparently took a lie detector test . but even if she really was attacked at a party back in high school , it doesn't necessary mean Kavanaugh was the man who did it . could be a case of mistaken identity or poor memory of the event itself 36 years later .


also typically when guilty men are accused of sexual harassment or assault there is a pattern of accusers and alleged events . that have similarities , often victims are a specific type or age and events occurred under similar circumstances


this case we only have 1 single accuser , no pattern of bad behaviour and not a single other women has come forward to say one bad thing about him . it sounds like Steve Paikin ( tvo host ) all over again , a case so crazy and made up it was tossed to the trash soon after it came out . although he still had to go thru a formal tvo investigation to clear his name regardless
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1289
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see that the McConnell Rule is playing out rather well on both sides of the aisle as respects this nomination debacle.

Ok...goose gander and all that.

What is particularly funny is how so bent out of shape folks get, invoking dishonest 'accusations' , finger waving and the like.

Such hypocrites . Love when they can do it but whine and cry when used against them.

Oh my...
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6202
Reputation: 295.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When did a Republican ever produce a woman claiming sexual abuse against the Democrat Supreme Court nominee? There is no Republican Diane Feinstein. TC just can't get his mind out of playground level stuff ... nyah, nyah nyah ...

I think they probably hoped that the #MeToo crowd would produce more women claiming that they too were abused. That's how they ghomeshi people. Two or three women who say "Me too" to whatever seems to be enough to convict in the court of public opinion.

Think of how they ghomeshied Patrick Brown. Same thing.

It's a system of terror, except instead of putting a bullet in your skull as they return you to your cell, they put a 'complaint' in your dossier, and send you to the North Bay office.

It's a real danger for any prominent man, particularly if he's in the public eye. The Courts can't help the victim because the trial takes place in a different 'courtroom.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1289
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your partisanship shows too much. Try and be moderate and realize that these games are and will be played on and on .
Bugs wrote:
When did a Republican ever produce a woman claiming sexual abuse against the Democrat Supreme Court nominee? There is no Republican Diane Feinstein. TC just can't get his mind out of playground level stuff ... nyah, nyah nyah ...

Ah..so now you move the goalposts to try (and failed) to make a point ? But , the answer is I dont know, and frankly I doubt it .

So?

If she is honest and forthright, considering her stature and what she would lose by lying, she should come and speak, and she has.

But hey , the Republicans play stupid games too if you can read.... the Reps refused, within hours of Scalia's death, to consider anyone put forward for the position.

Aint that grand, effectively saying you could put up MOther Theresa and we will squah the nomination.

Yup...Dems baaaaad...but your Reps are saints...saints I tells ya !

Good lord. LOL!


Quote:

Think of how they ghomeshied Patrick Brown.

Patrick Brown was too stupid to carry on as Premier in waiting. He was a first rate pussy who couldnt take any heat.

He killed himself . Quit within a couple of hours . Sheesh...lame.

Stop backing idiots and life becomes easier. But you do you! K?


Quote:

It's a real danger for any prominent man, particularly if he's in the public eye.

And yet, vast numbers , nay almost all men manage not to have any allegations announced against them.

Conspiracy only in your mind.

Um...Infowars and the other idiots are -----> that way. Have a nice trip.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9430
Reputation: 306.9Reputation: 306.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
When did a Republican ever produce a woman claiming sexual abuse against the Democrat Supreme Court nominee? There is no Republican Diane Feinstein. TC just can't get his mind out of playground level stuff ... nyah, nyah nyah ...

I think they probably hoped that the #MeToo crowd would produce more women claiming that they too were abused. That's how they ghomeshi people. Two or three women who say "Me too" to whatever seems to be enough to convict in the court of public opinion.

Think of how they ghomeshied Patrick Brown. Same thing.

It's a system of terror, except instead of putting a bullet in your skull as they return you to your cell, they put a 'complaint' in your dossier, and send you to the North Bay office.

It's a real danger for any prominent man, particularly if he's in the public eye. The Courts can't help the victim because the trial takes place in a different 'courtroom.




the bar has been set way too low in this case in my view , by the bar referring to the accusation and evidence its based around


it seems to mostly be based around the fact they both went to high school in the same city at some point in there lives and might of run into each other at a party . its not even being alleged they even knew each other or were friends , simply might of run into each other at a party

on the same basis , any man could be accussed of something simply because he lived or was in the same city as the women making the accusation . might of been in the same bar or went to the same party but didn't actually know each other


I'm not saying someone doesn't have the legal right to make an accusation against someone but before there allowed to go public with it . there needs to be legal checks and balances to verify the story is factual and that enough evidence is there to prove something did in fact happen .


when your accusing someone prominent of something so serious , I don't think its unreasonable to expect there to be some evidence to back up your claim . the woman accusing kavanaugh so far has not provided anything to back up her story and due to the amount of time that has passed its unclear if this story can be verified or not


and that's unfair to the person being accused if there is no way to prove or disprove the accusation , you simply have an accusation that is out there and no way to ever determine if its truthful or not . how is the FBI possibly suppose to investigate this case ,
she doesn't even know where the event occurred or who's house she was in ? both men accused say it didn't happen and know nothing about the incident . there is virtually no evidence to look into at this point


I'm just not sure where this is all headed , its unfair to the judge who was nominated , especially if the woman fails to testify before the senate or provide anything to back up her story
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6202
Reputation: 295.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It won't stop until it is stopped. Why would it stop by itself? -- it works too well.

That's what people think -- if we just give in to this one demand, they'll be happy and it'll be worth it. But they don't go away satisfied, they become more ambitious and greedy for more. When is justice achieved? When is the world safe enough?

So it isn't just something that will go away on its own.

Take the example of same-sex marriage. That was going to satisfy the homosexual activists -- but it didn't. They moved on to capture the sex education of Ontario, and to start making new demands for a new group that requires 'special pronouns, and you're in deep shit with officialdom if you don't use them. But these people aren't transsexuas, they're just a bunch of homosexuals following a fad, parading around in dresses like it's their human right to have someone pull their chair out for them.

It won't stop until it is stopped. Just watch ... you will see I am right.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 15

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Judge Brett Kavanaugh Nominated for Supreme Court Seat

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB