I'll just go ahead and save us both some time since it seems clear you don't want to answer my question about what a dying declaration is. You erroneously claim a person can't be a witness unless they saw the event in question. Further you attempted to tell me that I don't know what a witness is. This is what a dying declaration is: Dying Declaration Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is defined as a statement made by a declarant, who is now unavailable, who made the statement under a belief of certain or impending death, and the statement concerns the causes or circumstances of impending death. A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in any criminal homicide case or a civil case. If we are to believe your claim, the witness testifying on the stand as to the dying declaration is not actually a witness. Why? Because they didn't see the event in question. Instead, they heard about the event from the person who witnessed it. In fact, dying declarations also obliterate your argument that secondhand information is not relevant. I have another one for you: Excited Utterance Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an excited utterance is defined as a statement that concerns a startling event, made by the declarant when the declarant is still under stress from the startling event. An excited utterance is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. You're also claiming that the witness to the excited utterance is not actually a witness, right? They didn't see the event happen. And it's secondhand information, so that obviously isn't relevant to the investigation.
That the graph lines up with perceptions shouldn't be surprising since despite underlying data limitations and whatever judicial philosophy scheme justices employ to maintain the appearance of political impartiality, political ideology cannot be ignored. Yet, what's also interesting, in eyeballing the graph it appears that since 1965 there is a tendency for justices to drift leftward (or toward the center if starting from the right) across cases.
This is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about with Kavanaugh... His record speaks for itself.
It's not about his record right now. If it were he would have sailed through with the basic political divide being what it is.
It is about his record. Democrats didn’t like it and didn’t want him to replace Kennedy, so they pulled out all the stops and put out a political hit on him trying to kill his nomination. I was not a fan of Kavanaugh and would have preferred another candidate but after what the Democrats did to this process, it made me a very big Kavanaugh fan. If Difi had handled this properly and shared the letter in July and Grassley and Cocaine Mitch had recommended pulling the nomination to POTUS, I would have been fine with that, as would have many Republicans. Hopefully Democrats have learned their lesson and won’t try this again next year when Thomas retires and the Republicans still hold the Senate.
I can understand that sentiment. I can understand being pissed at Feinstein for delay of releasing the letter and the obvious attempt to delay the hearing as far as possible. But regardless of what Dems did wrong in the process, it doesn't absolve Kavanaugh of what he did wrong in the process. And in 2004 and 2006 as well - this practice of deception in confirmation hearings is a pattern. He used the Cam Newton defense for stolen property. Only he got away with it. There are well qualified conservative judges, who won't intentionally and materially deceive, deflect, evade, talk over and insult Senators or engage in partisan rants during his confirmation hearing. Not that it matters now. Party over country.
I completely disagree. The majority of Democratic senators stated that they would vote against Kavanaugh as soon as he was nominated. It did matter which "well qualified conservative judge" was picked, Democrats were going to come out against them to resist! Any pick POTUS made, whether Kavanaugh or anyone else, would have followed the Ginsburg methodology during their confirmation hearings. Once Democrats failed to land a significant blow against Kavanuagh during his hearings, they resorted to attempting a political hit job. The only reason that the SCOTUS has become so important is that Congress will not get off their rear ends, work together, and start passing some laws. The fact that Congress isn't doing it's job and passing laws or re-passing clarified legislation after the SCOTUS overturns something is the reason both political parties are will to go to the mat for a SCOTUS seat. Sometime before '04, I think if a big piece of legislation like the ACA had been overturned in the courts, there was a good chance that Congress could have worked together to re-structure it to make it pass constitutional muster. Instead of working together in Congress, both parties are looking to the courts to overturn laws that there passed that they don't like and happy to wait their turn to retake power.
Dems doing a straight party line vote is party over country as well. It's complete b.s. A qualified candidate should be confirmed. But nobody made Kavanaugh repeatedly lie under oath. That should be the end of discussion right there. Not to mention his behavior in court and partisan rant. Those are his actions. Not the the actions of the politicians involved here.
It is your opinion that he lied. Multiple posters have disagreed with you about those opinions. I believe we have settled the Devil's Triangle conundrum based on yearbook entries of classmates at the time. I'm sure that someone on here will never given up on the meaning of "boofing" even though they were not a part of Kavanaugh's circle of friends in the early 80's. If you want to quibble about whether doesn't remember = denies it, go for it, just don't expect anyone from the other side to keep a straight face when you do it.
Ellison is nothing but a blip in history while Kavanaugh is being appointed to the SC where he has great power for decades to come. It isn't just his sexism, lies and belligerence that's being objected to but his far right view point doesn't reflect the views of most Americans. That's why the Pubs are ramming him through this process and the Dems trying to stop his appointment.
As much as it's one's "opinion" that Dr. Ford is a scheming lying beyotch and this was nothing but a mean spirited con job aimed at blocking a nomination for various sinister and nefarious motivations? Because a lot of people are claiming it as fact, while their side is doing various sinister and nefarious things as well.
You need to add alt left to your list of deplorables. I’m estatic when the fringe groups out themselves. And that goes for people too. I want to know who people are and what they think.
“In a lonely grave, forgotten and unknown, lies “the man who saved a President,” and who as a result may well have preserved for ourselves and posterity Constitutional government in the United States—the man who performed in 1868 what one historian has called “the most heroic act in American history, incomparably more difficult than any deed of valor upon the field of battle”—but a United States Senator whose name no one recalls: Edmund G. Ross of Kansas. The Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson | Teaching American History
I know you know that.. I was just telling the others. If you're going to post on a political thread, the least you can do is get up to date on all the latest goal post moves before commenting, ffs!!
