Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Kubrath]

Kavanaugh was red meat to a base that's uncomfortable with Trump for, among other reasons, that.

I'm not sure about that. I think they see MeToo as part of the culture wars so the more democrats, liberals and feminists think someone is guilty of sexual assault, the more republicans want to back them.

That pretty much sums it up. It's not about being right but owning the other side.

[Diopolis]

Kavanaugh was red meat to a base that's uncomfortable with Trump for, among other reasons, that.

I'm not sure about that. I think they see MeToo as part of the culture wars so the more democrats, liberals and feminists think someone is guilty of sexual assault, the more republicans want to back them.

I doubt it. MeToo always came off, at least in my section of the right, as just a thing that happened. Now(and if feinstein hadn't sat on an allegation for a month, sprung it knowing there's no proof, and then starting screaming about Kav being a rapist, it wouldn't) you might have more of a point.

[Tarsonis]

You, 1,400 times...

This is why I rarely reply to you. You either don't read what I say or you do and just imagine it however you want.

Well it’s not like you listen to us either

[Petrasylvania]

But how will he own the Libs if no-one is there to see him do it?

Plus being a grandstanding fuckwit like that is probably a good way to get the rest of the bench to hate you.

His owning of the libs will have to be conveyed solely through text.

The Republicans are playimg Pokedem. Gotta Own Them All.

[Northern Davincia]

His owning of the libs will have to be conveyed solely through text.

The Republicans are playimg Pokedem. Gotta Own Them All.

You underestimate the joy of schadenfreude.

[Petrasylvania]

The Republicans are playimg Pokedem. Gotta Own Them All.

You underestimate the joy of schadenfreude.

But you roll your eyes and get huffy when I point out Liberal Salt Addiction. Admitting is the first step to recovery. :^]

[Proctopeo]

You underestimate the joy of schadenfreude.

But you roll your eyes and get huffy when I point out Liberal Salt Addiction. Admitting is the first step to recovery. :^]

It's more because you've run it so far into the ground it's bobbing off the coast of Australia than anything.
Besides, don't you have conservative salt withdrawal :^)

[Northern Davincia]

You underestimate the joy of schadenfreude.

But you roll your eyes and get huffy when I point out Liberal Salt Addiction. Admitting is the first step to recovery. :^]

The salt must flow.

[Tarsonis]

But you roll your eyes and get huffy when I point out Liberal Salt Addiction. Admitting is the first step to recovery. :^]

The salt must flow.

He that controls the salt, controls the universe.

[Northern Davincia]

The salt must flow.

He that controls the salt, controls the universe.

Remind me to reread Dune.

[Ifreann]

He that controls the salt, controls the universe.

Remind me to reread Dune.

Hey, re-read Dune.

[Elwher]

So, there are three people on here who don't care if he raped someone or not, 'cause they like the way his noggin clicks. Fascinating.

Because, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, his judicial policy is more important than whether he got grabby 36 years ago. BTW, it was sexual assault at most, even if it is true.

[Diopolis]

So, there are three people on here who don't care if he raped someone or not, 'cause they like the way his noggin clicks. Fascinating.

Because, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, his judicial policy is more important than whether he got grabby 36 years ago. BTW, it was sexual assault at most, even if it is true.

Still a scummy thing to do.
I mean, it's probably not true. But that doesn't make it ok if he did do it.

[Northern Davincia]

Remind me to reread Dune.

Hey, re-read Dune.

*internal grammatical screaming*

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, there are three people on here who don't care if he raped someone or not, 'cause they like the way his noggin clicks. Fascinating.

Because, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, his judicial policy is more important than whether he got grabby 36 years ago. BTW, it was sexual assault at most, even if it is true.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'ONLY SEXUAL ASSAULT, GOD DAMN.

Fuck. If he sexually assaulted someone, he is a criminal. A felon. He would have his voting rights stripped because he couldn't be trusted with a 1 in 150 million vote. And that guy needs to be on the Supreme Court? Such a man would need to be in prison if it were true.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, his judicial policy is more important than whether he got grabby 36 years ago. BTW, it was sexual assault at most, even if it is true.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'ONLY SEXUAL ASSAULT, GOD DAMN.

Fuck. If he sexually assaulted someone, he is a criminal. A felon. He would have his voting rights stripped because he couldn't be trusted with a 1 in 150 million vote. And that guy needs to be on the Supreme Court? Such a man would need to be in prison if it were true.

I'm pretty sure the claimed assault would only have been a misdemeanor if it happened but idk the exact inner workings of MD law.

[Greed and Death]

Because, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, his judicial policy is more important than whether he got grabby 36 years ago. BTW, it was sexual assault at most, even if it is true.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'ONLY SEXUAL ASSAULT, GOD DAMN.

Fuck. If he sexually assaulted someone, he is a criminal. A felon. He would have his voting rights stripped because he couldn't be trusted with a 1 in 150 million vote. And that guy needs to be on the Supreme Court? Such a man would need to be in prison if it were true.

There is a thing called Misdemeanor Sexual assault.

[Paddy O Fernature]

He innocent, yes

Just because the accusation hasn't been proven true yet doesn't make it false.

Um, actually, yeah it does.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that pesky due process nonsense....

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland- ... -laws.html

The allegations would but it under Third Degree Sexual Offence, which under Maryland law is a felony.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Just because the accusation hasn't been proven true yet doesn't make it false.

Um, actually, yeah it does.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that pesky due process nonsense....

No no, innocent until proven guilty is a procedural burden of proof in order to find the defendant guilty. It is meant in order not to punish those who might be innocent with prison time or fines, following the old adage 'better to have ten guilty men roam free than one innocent man behind bars'.

The veracity of the claims are not effected here, rather the level in which the jury has to be convinced. Ford could still take Kavanaugh before a civil court and claim damages, like what was done with OJ Simpson.

In the case of Kavanaugh, there is no punishment. If he wasn't approved, he would go back to being a federal judge, and his life would resume. In this case, it is more 'you get the job until proven guilty', which is not what a senate hearing is about.

[Licana]

Um, actually, yeah it does.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that pesky due process nonsense....

That's not actually how the presumption of innocence works.

[Vassenor]

Just because the accusation hasn't been proven true yet doesn't make it false.

Um, actually, yeah it does.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that pesky due process nonsense....

So what is the proof that she made the accusations falsely and potentially maliciously?

[Northern Davincia]

Um, actually, yeah it does.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that pesky due process nonsense....

So what is the proof that she made the accusations falsely and potentially maliciously?

Malice is in the eye of the beholder.

[Thuzbekistan]

Um, actually, yeah it does.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that pesky due process nonsense....

So what is the proof that she made the accusations falsely and potentially maliciously?

Why does the defendant have the burden of proof? The way this works is the accuser brings forth evidence, the defendant disputes the evidence, the jury decides the truth. What evidence has she brought forward? Her friends dont remember anything.

[Vassenor]

So what is the proof that she made the accusations falsely and potentially maliciously?

Why does the defendant have the burden of proof? The way this works is the accuser brings forth evidence, the defendant disputes the evidence, the jury decides the truth. What evidence has she brought forward? Her friends dont remember anything.

So claiming she made the accusation falsely is not itself an accusation? Especially with the claims that it was done maliciously specifically to deny him his rightful seat.