Do you support Mr. Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford?

[Xelor]

Understood. Tell me, if Kavanaugh were to be appointed to the Supreme Court and were subsequently to stand trial for and be convicted of attempted rape or sexual assault, would he forfeit his seat on the Court? I presume he would - hard to be an effective judge behind bars - but is that in fact the case?

The matter of a SCOTUS justice's being criminally tried and convicted hasn't ever come to the fore. The closest that any justice ever came was being impeached, but not by the Senate unseated.

In theory, a justice who's convicted in a criminal court and who loses all his/her appeals would become a justice in absentia for the time s/he's incarcerated.

 

[Xelor]

Where is the "insufficient data" option?

You're only expected to answer based on the information you have available at the time you answer the question.

 

[billvon]

And now we have the third woman coming forward with an allegation.

In any Trump personnel issue, somehow it always gets to the point where the argument becomes "all those women are LYING! They are lying sluts/ugly/drunk/confused/unethical." I wonder why we hear that argument so often?

 

[Xelor]

when it comes to the news I usually like to wait for some cross reference.

What does what one may hear on the news have to do with it. Dr. Ford wrote a letter and Mr. Kavanaugh's background, as well as Dr. Ford's, has been disclosed to some degree. The origianls data sources for all that stuff is readily available on the Internet. (Google is your friend.) Just answer the question based on what the two individuals have said, done and have said about them.

 

[Xelor]

Watch the video found here:

. (I promise you it's easy to watch, poignant and entertaining too.)

 

[Beaconator]

Mmmm.... Mrs. Montgomery...

 

[joepistole]

.

The Bill of Rights was passed simultaneously and identically with ratification. It was not a change to a previously ratified Constitution, but part of the original document.

Then how do you square that with the fact that the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, and the Bill Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791? And if the Amendments are part of the original Constitution as you have asserted, why are the called "amendments". Why were they ratified on different dates, years apart? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "amendment"? As is your custom, you aren't making sense Iceaura. Your assertions aren't consistent with the facts or reason.

 

[iceaura]

Then how do you square that with the fact that the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, and the Bill Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791?

The voted ratifications in 1788 were in several States conditional, by Massachusetts among others, and the condition was that several modifications would be made immediately - before the second Presidential election. This was done, under the threat of several States withdrawing their conditional ratification. They were passed as "amendments", rather than modifications of the text as originally proposed, in part to avoid having to revote all the ratifications of all the States involved, and in part to avoid having to call a second Constitutional Convention.

In contrast to its predecessors, the Massachusetts convention was angry and contentious, at one point erupting into a fistfight between Federalist delegate Francis Dana and Anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry when the latter was not allowed to speak.[26] The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also propose amendments.[27] The convention's proposed amendments included a requirement for grand jury indictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.[28]

Following Massachusetts' lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments

Regardless, we don't need any of this to reject an obviously unfit candidate for the Supreme Court. No matter what the Constitution is, what it is not is a pretext for enforcing one's authoritarian predilections - torture apologists and perjurers are disqualified.

 

[Bowser]

• Brett Kavanaugh, when he was a student at Prep, sexually assaulted Chrissy Blasey.

• Brett Kavanaugh, when he was a student at Prep, did not sexually assault Chrissy Blasey.

I believe you are innocent until proven guilty. An allegation is not proof of a crime.

 

[joepistole]

The voted ratifications in 1788 were in several States conditional, by Massachusetts among others, and the condition was that several modifications would be made immediately - before the second Presidential election. This was done, under the threat of several States withdrawing their conditional ratification. They were passed as "amendments", rather than modifications of the text as originally proposed, in part to avoid having to revote all the ratifications of all the States involved, and in part to avoid having to call a second Constitutional Convention.

You are obfuscating as is your custom. This is not that difficult. Contrary to your assertion the Constitution was ratified years before the Bill of Rights was ratified and that's why the Bill of Rights is a basket of amendments, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

[iceaura]

I believe you are innocent until proven guilty. An allegation is not proof of a crime.

This is a confirmation hearing, not a trial. Kavanaugh is not fit for the Court by being innocent of crimes.

You are obfuscating as is your custom.

Try reading your link, or at least the part I quoted above. It's not a complicated matter.
Massachusetts, Virginia, and enough others to dissolve the government, ratified conditionally and conditionally only. The condition was modification - originally, modification of the text and another Convention; after compromise, a set of "amendments". Without them, no ratification.

 

[billvon]

I believe you are innocent until proven guilty. An allegation is not proof of a crime.

Agreed. Kavanaugh is not on trial for a crime. This is a job interview, not a trial.

If you interviewed someone for a job as a cashier, and you talked to his references, and they all said "we had to fire this guy; he kept stealing from us" - would you hire him? Even if he claimed that he was the most honest guy on the planet and would never, ever steal a thing?

 

[gmilam]

You're only expected to answer based on the information you have available at the time you answer the question.

That's bullshit. Glad the courts don't work that way.

My answer is I don't have enough data to have an opinion. Having said that, the more data that surfaces - the worse it looks for Kavanaugh.

 

[Michael 345]

Xelor said: ↑
You're only expected to answer based on the information you have available at the time you answer the question

That's bullshit. Glad the courts don't work that way.

The courts do work that way

The jury does not have a option to say "we don't have enough information"

They make a decision on the info they have

They may have differences in interpretation of the evidence

My answer is I don't have enough data to have an opinion.

I don't have enough data

is in itself a opinion

 

[Bowser]

and they all said "we had to fire this guy; he kept stealing from us" - would you hire him?

He has a good work history. It's his character that is being challenged, with accusations that can't be proved.

 

[Bowser]

This is a confirmation hearing, not a trial. Kavanaugh is not fit for the Court by being innocent of crimes.

But if slinging mud can achieve a political end?

 

[billvon]

He has a good work history. It's his character that is being challenged, with accusations that can't be proved.

In my example, none of the accusations can be proven, either. He is adamant that he is 100% honest, and everyone who says otherwise is a lying hack. He has plenty of references from family and friends that say he is a wonderful guy. Would you hire him as a cashier?

 

[billvon]

But if slinging mud can achieve a political end?

Like discrediting a victim who is trying to bring some insight into the nomination process?

 

[Bells]

He has a good work history. It's his character that is being challenged, with accusations that can't be proved.

He has a record of lying under oath, of dodgy gambling habits... All of which was easily proven.

 

[iceaura]

He has a good work history

He has a public history of being willing to do very bad, wrong, dishonest things at work - to please his betters.
And he has a large amount of withheld, secret work history, that he refuses to divulge in public.

But if slinging mud can achieve a political end?

Then all the mud Kavanaugh slung as point man in the Arkansas Project and Ken Starr's media efforts will have been successful in advancing his Republican partisan career.

Then all the mud slung and being slung at all of Kavanaugh's dozens of accusers,

of documented perjury, of documented partisan thuggery, of documented prison torture promotion, of documented poor and inconsistent legal decision making, of alleged sexual assault over a period of years, of documented and alleged financial irregularities,

of documented and ongoing concealment of documents and evidence,

and to cap it off, the cherry on top of this shit sundae: of public and televised sycophancy, of displaying a willingness to kiss ass and flatter the powerful with even the most ridiculous and obvious lies to obtain promotion and favor among the rich and powerful - right out on TV in front of God and his family, his friends and his children,

will have done its job. Because there's no way in hell or even America this guy makes the Supreme Court otherwise.