If the Kavanaugh accusations are true...

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Isn't he accused of attempted rape, and showing off his private parts to another women? And he's denying it. If there's any truth to the attempted rape. Then there probably more victims. But if he truly guilty of either and lying about it. Then no Christian should be okay with him on being on the bench.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Three months with a letter in a hip pocket of Feinstein. Truly?

At Ford's request. Once it was leaked...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Isn't he accused of attempted rape, and showing off his private parts to another women? And he's denying it. If there's any truth to the attempted rape. Then there probably more victims. But if he truly guilty of either and lying about it. Then no Christian should be okay with him on being on the bench.

I think we've all learned that Christianity gets backburnered whenever the Will of Donald is concerned.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think we've all learned that Christianity gets backburnered whenever the Will of Donald is concerned.

How do you know it's not Christians who are the ones who want a conservative in the SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution correctly rather than one that is a liberal activist?

 

[redleghunter]

At Ford's request. Once it was leaked...

And what responsibilities as a US Senator since the Jurassic age did Feinstein skirt on this matter? Legally? Ethically?

 

[redleghunter]

I think we've all learned that Christianity gets backburnered whenever the Will of Donald is concerned.

Let's examine this a bit. Innocent until proven guilty goes all the way back to Mosaic Law and the requirement of two or three witnesses.

Deuteronomy 19: NASB
15“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16“If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18“The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.

What's lacking in all three separate accusations is just one more witness. Been bleeding that all over this thread and a few more. All the Democrats have to do is get one more sworn statement or witness that says yep Kavanaugh was there, the woman was there , and he did that. One more....Then the dialogue would be about perjury---and that is based on the quality and volume of the evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know it's not Christians who are the ones who want a conservative in the SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution correctly rather than one that is a liberal activist?

LOL! Not all Christians, Some Christians want a liberal justice who will interpret the Constitution correctly.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's not clear. Jeff Flake has said pretty clearly that "If they push forward without any attempt with hearing what she's had to say, I'm not comfortable voting yes,"

And several other Republican senators have hemmed and hawed.

With the new allegations, Susan Collins has become even more concerned.

The sworn statement, Collins told the senators, brought the allegations to a new level and raised concerns that enough wasn't being done to address their veracity. Pointing to the affidavit, which she had printed out, Collins said given the weight of the allegations, it made sense to subpoena Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge -- an alleged witness to the incidents — and bring him in for testimony.

It'll be interesting to see if Collins can succeed in getting fellow Republicans to agree to bring Mark "hiding out in Delaware" Judge in. Or conversely, whether Collins will support Kavanaugh if they don't pull him in.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How do you know it's not Christians who are the ones who want a conservative in the SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution correctly rather than one that is a liberal activist?

Because they'd find a jurist with a less rape-y reputation to do it.

Character and integrity matter to Christians -- or at least it used to before Donald offered them what really matters: power.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's examine this a bit. Innocent until proven guilty goes all the way back to Mosaic Law and the requirement of two or three witnesses.

Deuteronomy 19: NASB
15“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16“If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18“The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.

What's lacking in all three separate accusations is just one more witness. Been bleeding that all over this thread and a few more. All the Democrats have to do is get one more sworn statement or witness that says yep Kavanaugh was there, the woman was there , and he did that. One more....Then the dialogue would be about perjury---and that is based on the quality and volume of the evidence.

Matthew 7:7

Kavanaugh accuser sends Senate sworn statements from four people corroborating her claims

 

[redleghunter]

Matthew 7:7

Kavanaugh accuser sends Senate sworn statements from four people corroborating her claims

What do you think those documents mean to her claim?

 

[redleghunter]

Because they'd find a jurist with a less rape-y reputation to do it.

Well that would be hypocritical no? Claims need two or more witnesses.

 

[Sistrin]

Kavanaugh accuser sends Senate sworn statements from four people corroborating her claims

This is a joke.

From the article cited, quote:

"The documents, first obtained by USA Today, show that Christine Blasey Ford's husband and three friends corroborated that she disclosed to them at various points in recent years that she was allegedly assaulted."

I can corroborate that yesterday you told me you thought Kavanaugh was guilty. That doesn't render Kavanaugh guilty. Or that you even believe he is. Or anything else other than you said something.

 

[wing2000]

And what responsibilities as a US Senator since the Jurassic age did Feinstein skirt on this matter? Legally? Ethically?

What are you suggesting? The Senator should have divulged the Ford's letter, violating her request for privacy?

 

[redleghunter]

What are you suggesting? The Senator should have divulged the Ford's letter, violating her request for privacy?

She should have pointed her to the Montgomery County Maryland DA's office to file her complaint and the investigation would have begun.

 

[Aldebaran]

LOL! Not all Christians, Some Christians want a liberal justice who will interpret the Constitution correctly.

By definition, liberals don't interpret the Constitution correctly. They're the ones who don't even think it's relevant, even when they sit on the Supreme Court. Who is it that said, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”?

 

[Aldebaran]

Because they'd find a jurist with a less rape-y reputation to do it.

Character and integrity matter to Christians -- or at least it used to before Donald offered them what really matters: power.

Didn't you get enough attention by saying that in a recent post?

 

[Belk]

By definition, liberals don't interpret the Constitution correctly. They're the ones who don't even think it's relevant, even when they sit on the Supreme Court. Who is it that said, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”?

Wait what?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Wait what?

It's true. You hadn't heard?

This is also true:

re·pub·li·can
rəˈpəbləkən/

noun

1. 
   a person who eat babies.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wait what?

I said:
By definition, liberals don't interpret the Constitution correctly. They're the ones who don't even think it's relevant, even when they sit on the Supreme Court. Who is it that said, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”?