If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Do you remember what the FBI found? In that case, Anita Hill started with sworn testimony. In this case they tried to conceal Dr. Ford's name.
I give you Garland. That's one of the because-we-can issues that is fair only to the extent Democrats do the same sort of shit. In their case it was Bork 332 years ago.
J
I never understand the Bork example. The nomination was dead in the water, and Reagan knew it, for at least three reasons: 1) Nixon had promised Bork the seat because he was the trigger man in the Saturday Night Massacre, but Nixon was forced to resign before he got the chance to follow through. That was never going to work. 2) Bork was a hard core idealogue, massively far to the right on abortion, the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. 3) Most importantly, Bork was nominated to replace a respected moderate on the Court and Reagan had been told in advance that an extremist would not be accepted. The seat ultimately went to Anthony Kennedy, a far more rational choice.
The vote wasn't close in the Senate. He did get a vote, though.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper
If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
B-Fly, you have a law degree, so help me out here.
taking the emotions out of it (if that's possible), how does someone informally accused of something testify first? what does he testify to? and if it's responding to a newspaper article, is that how the legal system works? and he's going to testify that he wasn't...... where?
I'm sure there's a reasonable answer. but I guess I'm used to thinking the protocol was someone formally filing a complaint, let's call it, and that then brings interest in getting a response from the accused.
I'm not using the names, because the names - and the case - aren't relevant to my question. see what I mean?
I realize this is not a criminal proceeding, but I still don't get it. and are they saying he will go first and third? I assume they'd have to bring him back once her story is heard.
You realize that this is not a criminal proceeding, but you still want to apply a criminal context, and yet you insist the specific case isn't relevant. This is all about the specific context of confirmation hearings in support of the Senate's constitutional advise and consent duty. In that context, the nominee is the primary and key witness, and can be asked about pretty much anything, including rumors. Any Senator is free to weigh pretty much anything, including rumors about character and gross suppositions about what kind of Justice the nominee would be. There's no "right to confront the accuser" or to cite rules of criminal evidence to have a judge preclude Senators from considering certain things. Ultimately, it's up to the Senate to decide how to conduct the hearing, and the main goal is to assess whether to vote 'yes' or 'no' on the nominee's lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In that context, I think it's reasonable when there are serious and disturbing accusations against a nominee to ask the nominee to respond to them, particularly when the allegations include detail and the denials (to date) have been blanket. The Senators have received the allegations. They can ask him specific questions regarding his conduct and memory, then call in witnesses who dispute or corroborate his answers, and then, sure, give him another opportunity to answer questions about the testimony from those witnesses. But the Senate owns this, and they need to conduct it in a way that gives them comfort in deciding whether to vote 'yes' or 'no' on this nominee.
I don't see that as particularly responsive to my points, B-Fly. I'll try again.
"how does someone informally accused of something testify first? what does he testify to? and if it's responding to a newspaper article, is that how the legal system works? and he's going to testify that he wasn't...... where?"
finished 10th in this 37th yr in 11-team-only NL 5x5
own picks 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 in April 2022 1st-rd farmhand draft
won in 2017 15 07 05 04 02 93 90 84
SP SGray 16, TWalker 10, AWood 10, Price 3, KH Kim 2, Corbin 10
RP Bednar 10, Bender 10, Graterol 2
C Stallings 2, Casali 1
1B Votto 10, 3B ERios 2, 1B Zimmerman 2, 2S Chisholm 5, 2B Hoerner 5, 2B Solano 2, 2B LGarcia 10, SS Gregorius 17
OF Cain 14, Bader 1, Daza 1
I don't see that as particularly responsive to my points, B-Fly. I'll try again.
"how does someone informally accused of something testify first? what does he testify to? and if it's responding to a newspaper article, is that how the legal system works? and he's going to testify that he wasn't...... where?"
He doesn't have to respond to anything except the questions of the Senators. And it's not a newspaper article, it's a detailed written allegation, at least from Ford. Any Senator on the panel for the hearing can ask him about it (and could ask him about a newspaper article too if they wanted to).
At this rate, by Wednesday, I'm sure we'll be up to satanic worship and child sacrifice.
Yeah, because gross sexual misconduct is funny.
"I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
The hand picked Kavanaugh and his extremist position on Presidential power, Kavanaughs words "I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government". This imperialist view of the President from a SC nominee while the sitting President is in the midst of legal problems on multiple fronts is some absurdist theater.
But besides this point, that kavanaugh is a uniquely self serving pick from Trump, we are not weighing Kavanaughs guilt as if this is a criminal preceeding. This is closer to an interview for a promotion, and simply having doubt about nominee should suffice to dismiss nomination and the fact there is such a push for a rush is simply because those in charge dont want to expose the other secrets waiting to get out. That we have powers so against FBI conducting what is standard protocol in these cases for SC nominees, a maybe 3 day investigation while say the 3rd person in room could be questioned regarding event is telling. We can puzzle together maybe a shred of something to have congressional questioning in 1st place would maybe make sense.
This push to quickly fill empty seat with an extremist will fail in short order, and not because of Trump deciding to be reasonable and withdraw support, but because McConnell can count, as of today he is short the votes, and will push for next name on the Koch's list.
Dems are so coordinated and desperate, but they didn't target the guy who got the stolen seat. Chance you're embarrassing yourself.
If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
Or because these charges have less evidence behind them than the famed Rolling Stone UVA disaster.
You debase yourself in supporting scumbags daily. No longer surprising.
Larry David was once being heckled, long before any success. Heckler says "I'm taking my dog over to fuck your mother, weekly." Larry responds "I hate to tell you this, but your dog isn't liking it."
He doesn't have to respond to anything except the questions of the Senators. And it's not a newspaper article, it's a detailed written allegation, at least from Ford. Any Senator on the panel for the hearing can ask him about it (and could ask him about a newspaper article too if they wanted to).
The only thing that would happen with him testifying first, and will probably happen anyway is we will hear a lot of, "I have no recollection of that, and I would never do something of that kind."
"Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue. - Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane
i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs. - nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.
The only thing that would happen with him testifying first, and will probably happen anyway is we will hear a lot of, "I have no recollection of that, and I would never do something of that kind."
Maybe. Since at least one of his "friends" floated a mistaken identity defense, there's still the question of whether he would seek to outright deny even being at the party in question, and what, if anything, he would say about whether he even knew or remembered the accuser(s).
The hand picked Kavanaugh and his extremist position on Presidential power, Kavanaughs words "I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government". This imperialist view of the President from a SC nominee while the sitting President is in the midst of legal problems on multiple fronts is some absurdist theater.
But besides this point, that kavanaugh is a uniquely self serving pick from Trump, we are not weighing Kavanaughs guilt as if this is a criminal preceeding. This is closer to an interview for a promotion, and simply having doubt about nominee should suffice to dismiss nomination and the fact there is such a push for a rush is simply because those in charge dont want to expose the other secrets waiting to get out. That we have powers so against FBI conducting what is standard protocol in these cases for SC nominees, a maybe 3 day investigation while say the 3rd person in room could be questioned regarding event is telling. We can puzzle together maybe a shred of something to have congressional questioning in 1st place would maybe make sense.
This push to quickly fill empty seat with an extremist will fail in short order, and not because of Trump deciding to be reasonable and withdraw support, but because McConnell can count, as of today he is short the votes, and will push for next name on the Koch's list.
Tweet
Comment