democrats dont have a snowball in hell chanch of winning Tx and Tn The only reason polls in Tn are close is because two liberal left wing polls CNN and NBC have the dem up by five. The republicans will pick up a seat in ND and are tied on picking up a seat in FL
If we're talking solely about Too Hot, I think there are five or six lawyers who post here. There are more who post elsewhere. Can anyone show me one of the lawyers who post here using the "innocent until proven guilty" argument? For example, @GatorBen is a lawyer and a Republican, and I have certainly not seen him use that argument in this thread. Here's a comment he made in another thread about Mueller: Why aren't the lawyers making that argument? Because they know better. Kavanaugh isn't innocent until proven guilty because this isn't a criminal trial.
Wow …. this is how bad some of the wild-eyed leftists are taking this matter. It's hard to believe they are so far off kilter. Bette Midler Apologizes For Tweeting ‘Women, Are The N-Word of The World’ Bette Midler ✔ @BetteMidler The too brief investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh infuriated me. Angrily I tweeted w/o thinking my choice of words would be enraging to black women who doubly suffer, both by being women and by being black. I am an ally and stand with you; always have. And I apologize. 11:23 PM - Oct 4, 2018
Well, we haven't quite got to the point where people are judged guilty or innocent by statistics. Good thing as my son might be out of a job & would have to move back home.
That's quite the strawman argument. You posted an article about a false accusation. I relayed my story of one. I then pointed out that despite the fact that they do happen, it's statistically unlikely. Never did I say anything about convicting someone on statistics. However, what the statistics do show is that it's more likely your son will be sexually assaulted than falsely accused of sexual assault. Accordingly, the fearmongering over false accusations doesn't score points with me.
There have been a number of highly respected lawyers on TV who have indeed made the innocent until proven guilty argument about this Kavanaugh smear. The legal world is vast outside this tiny bubble of lawyers who post occasionally on Too Hot For Swamp Gas.
What you're not getting is that a SCOTUS appointment is not a criminal trial, where you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even a civil trial, where you simply need more evidence on one side than the other. It's a job interview. The existence of any credible accusation that an applicant attempted to rape a woman is enough to warrant disqualification. Why? Because there are thousands of qualified candidates without those accusations hanging over them. There is absolutely no reason to roll the dice on this one. None at all. It may be better for 10 guilty people to go free than one be sent to prison, but for a SCOTUS appointment, that no one has a right to? I'd rather have 100 people lose out on that opportunity than take the chance that one attempted rapist sit the bench. SCOTUS judges should be as near to beyond reproach as practically possible, and this guy isn't anywhere close.
Not to mention the repeated lies, deflections, evasiveness, interrupting and talking over Senators, and partisan rant. Not the hallmarks of a good job interview, nor of someone fit to be a USSC justice. It appears party over country will rule the day, though.
This isn't me saying you can't confirm him because you haven't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. It's me saying you haven't even convinced me that any of it actually may have happened in the first place. I agree, it's not a criminal trial. Because it would never make it to criminal trial. It's a baseless allegation that NOBODY can corroborate. I agree innocent until proven guilty only applies in the context of a criminal trial. We will never get to that point with this one.
[ The day a well qualified person misses out on a SC nomination because some dingbat makes allegations against them she cannot prove and cannot get anyone to back her up will be a day of regret in this country . She could not even get her best friend to help her out. Her best friend is to be commended as she put honor before friendship
I'd hate to have to settle for that, it's 2018 and I'd like to think we have evolved as a species beyond knuckle dragging cro magnon tribal loyalty. ...What the hell am I thinking, I guess we have to settle. That's what I get for thinking.
This really getting fun as now Ford is calling Keyser who Ford named as member of the party but would not back her up is calling Keyser a liar "Keyser told FBI investigators McLean pressured her to change her statement, The Wall Street Journal reported. “Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser’s account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is absolutely false,” McLean’s attorney, David Laufman, said in a statement. Why is this not witness tampering and should be investigated by the FBI Kavanaugh allegations thrust Ford's friend, Monica McLean, into spotlight: What to know
I hear you. I was posting a bit quickly yesterday morning, so allow me to explain a little more. First, I think the graph is useful in seeing how justices trend over time. The underlying data and statistical probability that produced the graph seem pretty strong to me. Nevertheless, I believe I am correct in cautioning against over-interpretation and in how we understand the placement of each justice within the graph relative to the zero line since the line itself is arbitrary and based on the "median justice" which is essentially the middle point relative to all justices. However, this doesn't mean that the further away from zero the more extremely ideological that a justices is. Rather it means the more consistently they took con/lib positions on the cases each year. For example, Clarence Thomas started out at about 2.7 in 1991 but trended to 4.0 by 2005, didn't get more extreme, but voted more consistently each year in a way that would be expected from a conservative justice. Likewise with the Notorious RBG who in 1993 started at about -.2 but by 2017 was about -2.8 (roughly eyeballing the graph) voted more consistently in a way that a liberal justice would be expected to on cases as time went on.
Ford's allegation has not been corroborated. Correct. Apparently, Ramirez' allegation has been corroborated, although FBI officials did not interview the people coming forward to corroborate. Even leaving out the potentially corroborated sexual assault of Ramirez, he still engaged in all the deception, deflection, evasiveness, and partisan ranting highlighted many times in this thread. There is not any one thing that disqualifies him, but when you look at everything, there is a lot that disqualifies him from being seated on the highest court in the land. Not that it will have any bearing on the voting.
Huh? The best friend said she believed her but said she doens't remember the party. You and others here keep misrepresenting things, not to mention the unnecessary name calling. But I get it, some people simply can't help themselves.
when you look at the whole ball of wax it leaves no doubt that this a political hit job that backfired on the Democrats
Apparently it doesn't since you can seem to understand that someone who was not in the room during the time Ms. Ramirez claims the incident happened, is not a witness. According to Roche, and his buddy, they swear "Scout's Honor, no fingers crossed behind their back" they are telling the truth and they learn contemporaneously at the time, with no proof whatsoever. Yeah, no idea why the FBI doesn't want to talk to the guy that has a personal and likely political axe to grind against Kavanaugh, who is claiming that he has evidence to prove what has been out in the media for several weeks. I'm willing to bet he would say he has overhead proof contemporaneously of the alien landings in Roswell too if Kavanaugh was on record as saying aliens don't exist. There is a reason that these investigations are handled in a non-public manner. Roche is the poster boy for why conducting a background check into something like this is almost impossible once the public is aware of it. When a political dog fight like this goes public, people are willing to lie to ensure the political outcome that they want. DiFi could have avoided all of this but she chose not too. If you're upset at anyone over who and who is not being interviewed, yell at DiFi, not us.
