I guess you only care about the constitution when it's convenient. What a surprise!
Except this isn't a job interview, if it was the President would just appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the position.
Except this isn't a job interview, if it was the President would just appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the position.
What part of what I wrote indicates that I don't support the advise and consent roll of the Senate? Look closely now.I guess you only care about the constitution when it's convenient. What a surprise!
Bullshit, but kinda cute.As citizens of the republic, Kavanaugh is our employee. He needs to prove that he has sufficient qualifications and character for the job. If he can't do that, he's free to work for someone else.
Thanks for putting on display your ignorance of the matter.
First off, it wouldn't be a criminal investigation, hence the reason, literally no one, has suggested as much.
Second, the investigation would be part of the background check the FBI does on a regular basis. However, it's the president who authorizes such a background check on his nomination. In other words it won't happen. So what we will end up with is a he said she said and a cloud of suspicion over Kavanagh's nomination, entirely preventable by the president himself.
What part of what I wrote indicates that I don't support the advise and consent roll of the Senate? Look closely now.
Bullshit, but kinda cute.
I didn't say criminal investigation, I said why it wouldn't be. Everything else you said is true. This is going to fizzle out as, as you say, it's a cloud of suspicion, but in the end will not be beyond reasonable doubt. If it were proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it, I would also be opposed to his confirmation. That said, I'm not seeing that happening. I've been wrong before, but I'm not getting to that place at this point.
Yeah, and the part about being a job interview is in the Constitution where?The part where this is indeed a job interview where the senate gives its advise and consent.
Don't you ever read that little constitution, patriots like you (and Kavanagh), carry around with them all the time?
Yeah, and the part about being a job interview is in the Constitution where?
The part about him being an "employee" ! It's cute and precious. Something a 3rd grader would say.If that's not the way you want it then move somewhere with a dictatorship, little fascist.
You made the assertion that Kavanaugh should want an investigation to prove his innocence. He doesn’t need to prove anything. All he needs to do is show up and testify under oath if the Senate asks him to, something he is willing to do.Are you really this fucking dumb? First off, no one said the burden of proof of innocence was on the accused, so thanks for yet another straw man. Second, the point of the investigation was to validate or invalidate the claims of the accuser. If one claims they are innocent then the accuser shouldn't be able to validate their claims.
This is basic shit.
I am not. @ivwshane did.You're the only one trying to conflate the two.
Explain that to those who keep asserting that Kavanaugh should want to prove his innocenceExcept we said the same thing. It's not a criminal trial. No goalposts are moving except on your end.
Coming from the logical fallacy water boy chief of policeYou have to give him a break, without the use of straw man arguments and "both sides" bullshit, he doesn't have much input on these threads.
The part about him being an "employee" ! It's cute and precious. Something a 3rd grader would say.
You made the assertion that Kavanaugh should want an investigation to prove his innocence. He doesn’t need to prove anything. All he needs to do is show up and testify under oath if the Senate asks him to, something he is willing to do.
I am not. @ivwshane did.
Explain that to those who keep asserting that Kavanaugh should want to prove his innocence
Coming from the logical fallacy water boy chief of police
You made the assertion that Kavanaugh should want an investigation to prove his innocence. He doesn’t need to prove anything. All he needs to do is show up and testify under oath if the Senate asks him to, something he is willing to do.
I am not. @ivwshane did.
Explain that to those who keep asserting that Kavanaugh should want to prove his innocence
Coming from the logical fallacy water boy chief of police
The part about him being an "employee" ! It's cute and precious. Something a 3rd grader would say.
You get everything so right and yet so wrong. You are missing the elephant in the room. If the story of the woman is truthful, Kavanaugh did permanent damage to her whole life, a crime for which he hasn't been forced to pay a single dime. Now it's her turn to fuck him back, to extract payback for what he did to her, and it is just plain up to us to forgive her for that weakness. In time he will recover and be able to face life again knowing he paid the price he so wished he could avoid. We will just have to accept our human nature that when you fuck somebody they will fuck you back if they can. The symbol of justice is a blind scale. You want justice that is blind in one eye.I look at the accusation, and if true, I see a minor committing a crime while drunk. I hear of drunks doing stupid !@#$ all the time. That's alcohol. Sex assault? That's a teenage boy on alcohol. To me, the bigger violation (today) is the denial.
Time should ease things. I recall a few cases of those 90 year old Germans we deport back for their roles in WW2. We should leave them alone, but our people too often seek to harm others and not accept or appreciate the difference a lifetime can make. If an elementary school kid puts their hands on another kid, is that a mark that society should hang around their neck for the rest of their lives? Do we not make exceptions to forgive minors? Of course we do, or at least some of us try. Others simply want to contribute to a cycle of violence and/or vengeance. Looking for any transgression, any opportunity to do harm no matter how old or what circumstance.
Now... this one would be serious if she had actually been raped. But that's not the accusation. Somewhere along the line, in a drunken lust to pressure a girl, Kavanaugh had the sense to listen to her. Or maybe he was so impaired as to pass out. Suppose at that point he might be telling the truth, of not remembering it. But no, due to political opportunity he must be guilty until proven innocent. And a minor's violation 35+ years ago is the most important topic of his life. In context I think it's BS. In general I don't credit a mere accusation that cannot be substantiated.
In all, what Kavanaugh may have done as a drunk teenage boy does not move me. The context matters.
Somewhere along the line Democrats hold a position regarding the criminal justice system. That it should be of rehab and rehabilitation. Not life sentences, not vengeance. That people should not be marked for life. Felons, criminal background checks for employment, etc. The things that keep minorities down. But here we are, a political opportunity rises and that concept doesn't exist. Context doesn't exist. Innocent until proven guilty does not exist. Hypocrisy, or maybe I'm just too damn liberal for your taste.
Not really. If his potential employer wants to bring him in for another round of interviews, he would have to if he wants the job, but he can ignore these allegations if the Senate decides to put his nomination to vote.Well the burden of proof is kind of on Kavanaugh to prove he’s a good nominee, the opposite of a criminal trial.
This is basically a job interview, after all.
The original claim was that he was an employee of the citizens. NOT the federal government. Nice move on the goalposts though.He works for the federal government in exchange for a paycheck. He is by every legal definition there is an employee.
If you think otherwise I challenge you to provide a definition of employee he does not meet.
Not really. If his potential employer wants to bring him in for another round of interviews, he would have to if he wants the job, but he can ignore these allegations if the Senate decides to put his nomination to vote.
He has indicated he is willing to answer these allegations.
So if I apply for a job I don't have to prove I deserve it, rather the employer has to prove I don't? Wow, that should make interviews a lot easier.
No, he wouldn’t. He could choose to show up or not show up to the follow on interview and the employer would still face the choice of whether or not it wanted to hire him. I know of cases for low level jobs where the person blew off the interview and was offered a job anyway, haha. Similarly, he could have chosen not to show up to his confirmation hearing and the senate could confirm him anyway if it wanted.
I mean call it what you want but this is a situation where Kavanaugh is going to be asked a bunch of questions by people who will then decide whether or not he is offered a position where he goes to a place and works every day in exchange for money. What is that if not a job interview?
The original claim was that he was an employee of the citizens. NOT the federal government. Nice move on the goalposts though.