Kavanaugh must go.

KCfromNC said:

There were certainly some interesting things to come out of the limited investigation that was allowed.

Click to expand...

Name one that affirmed Ford's story.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

All I'm getting is rape and having multiple affairs isn't a sin to some people.

Click to expand...

You believed that idiotic rape-train story? Or perhaps I should ask which rape story you are referring to.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Also the president wants Kavanaugh. Because he thinks he will stop the Muller investigation.

Click to expand...

There appear to be many people who have no idea how the Supreme Court works. A justice on the Supreme Court does not pick and choose which cases he or she wants to rule on or what issues he or she wants to address. The court chooses from those cases brought before them, hears the case, and then each Justice cast one of nine votes.

Justices of the Supreme Court are not omnipotent. They don't rule by decree as if gods from on high. True, that is exactly how many of the American left want the court to work, but that isn't how it works.

The real question is what is everybody afraid of. There was a lot of people who have put together a notorious plan to discredit this man. I believe something is up and they are all shaking in their boots.

jhwatts said:

The real question is what is everybody afraid of. There was a lot of people who have put together a notorious plan to discredit this man. I believe something is up and they are all shaking in their boots.

Click to expand...

It's all about Roe v. Wade. Dems wanted to protect abortion "rights" and that's it.

Yekcidmij said:

Who committed rape? Also, I keep hearing (not from you necessarily) that this wasn't a court so legal standards of evidence and presumption of innocence don't apply, but here you're making a criminal charge, which is curious as well since the accuser didn't even press criminal charges. So is this a criminal matter? If so, do legal standards of evidence and presumption of innocence apply?



What makes you think this? Have you read Kav's actual opinion piece about executive privilege? It seems not, because his piece was pretty specific. If he applied his opinion piece to the Meuller investigation, I don't see how it would stop the investigation. In fact, it would demand the sequence be: impeachment then criminal and/or civil indictment. But it appears you may not have read it.

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

Click to expand...

Please read page 1461-1462. What is your understanding of the last paragraph of 1461 and 1462?
I don't like the idea of no criminal investigations because, as we should be very aware right now, the longer it takes to do an investigation memories are foggy, documents disappear or are unclear, witnesses move on, etc. That doesn't mean there needs to be a trial but evidence gathering should never be put off for years.

However, thanks for posting this paper. I agreed with almost everything that Kavanaugh said and his solutions to the problems, including a single, six year, presidential term.

Hank77 said:

Please read page 1461-1462. What is your understanding of the last paragraph of 1461 and 1462?

Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me. Quote:

"A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress. Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution."

Kavnaugh is echoing the sentiments of the founders, including the notion if a sitting President were subject to unfettered civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions, that is all a Presidents term would consist of. The Constitution provides a very clear means to address malfeasance on the part of a sitting President, and it isn't an unlimited never-ending investigation by partisan forces. That power is consigned to the legislative branch.

Hank77 said:

I think that is referring to men who are already Christians, if not it doesn't make sense that God would chose Paul to be an apostle.

Click to expand...

We're talking about people who are already Christians.

Sistrin said:

Seems pretty clear to me. Quote:

"A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress. Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution."

Kavnaugh is echoing the sentiments of the founders, including the notion if a sitting President were subject to unfettered civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions, that is all a Presidents term would consist of. The Constitution provides a very clear means to address malfeasance on the part of a sitting President, and it isn't an unlimited never-ending investigation by partisan forces. That power is consigned to the legislative branch.

Click to expand...

I don't recall where he invoked the Framers opinion about this but I'll go look.
After doing a search I don't see where he makes in such statement. This is his own opinion. I just don't happen to agree with him about putting off investigations.

Would you have agree to putting off the Benghazi investigationssssssss until Obama was out of office?

seekingmuch said:

It's all about Roe v. Wade. Dems wanted to protect abortion "rights" and that's it.

Click to expand...

Not really .As I stated earlier. It wont be over turned. That just a dream for some people.

section9+1 said:

If there are skeletons in your closet should you be a pastor or a church leader? That should be more critical since you are being entrusted with the guidance of people's eternal souls. But I'm afraid if that were enforced there'd be doggone few pastors to be found anywhere in any denomination or in any generation.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

We're talking about people who are already Christians.

Click to expand...

The original post doesn't appear to say that. Just like Paul, who had skeletons in his closet, before he met the Lord many very upright and righteous men/women were not always in that state. They too can be called to serve as a pastor. In fact, they may actually be more useful to the Lord and the congregation because they know what it is to live without the Lord, how humbling it is to meet Him in repentance, and know the full freedom found in His mercy and grace.

Hank77 said:

Would you have agree to putting off the Benghazi investigationssssssss until Obama was out of office?

Click to expand...

Benghazi was not a criminal investigation. It was an investigation into the events of that night with particular regard to how the administration responded to them based on issued comments and actions taken. Or lack thereof. An ambassador of the United States died, was murdered, that night. Would you expect no investigation? Especially given a prominent member of the administration labeled it terrorism, and then made the inane assertion it was all due to a Youtube video?

seekingmuch said:

I think Ringo and Cat woman needs to watch Susan Collins' speech yesterday.

Click to expand...

I'm listening. I'm really not hearing anything .That doesn't convince me. He's is or isn't a rapist. The better the person. The sneaker they are.

Hank77 said:

The original post doesn't appear to say that. Just like Paul, who had skeletons in his closet, before he met the Lord many very upright and righteous men/women were not always in that state. They too can be called to serve as a pastor. In fact, they may actually be more useful to the Lord and the congregation because they know what it is to live without the Lord, how humbling it is to meet Him in repentance, and know the full freedom found in His mercy and grace.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't believe people stop doing evil acts, because they claim to be Christian or met God. Rapist and child molesters fit into that category to me.

OldWiseGuy said:

I watched (listened) to it. I was very impressed.

Click to expand...

Impressed with what.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Not really .As I stated earlier. It wont be over turned. That just a dream for some people.

Click to expand...

I actually think it will or at least be revisited, struck down, and a new argument be constructed. It appears to many lawyers and judges to be written as legislative law rather than a Constitutional decision. Sorry, not being a lawyer, etc. I don't know how to word that in legal terms, but maybe you can get the gist.
It's really important that we keep really clear lines between the courts, especially the Supreme Court, and powers to legislate law. We have to keep those checks and balances clearly defined.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Personally I don't believe people stop doing evil acts, because they claim to be Christian or met God. Rapist and child molesters fit into that category to me.

Click to expand...

Well there's 'skeletons' and there's 'SKELETONS'.

Sistrin said:

Would you expect no investigation?

Click to expand...

No, I would definitely expect that investigation and it could have had very serious consequences for both Obama and Clinton.
Benghazi was a criminal investigation. When no one in the US was charged, there were charges against people in Libya, they went back over testimony looking for instances of perjury. Oh and Obama emailed Clinton which would have gone through her private server.

Should there be an investigation into Russia's involvement in our elections and into the Trump campaign's people? It too has become a criminal investigation.

So I guess we would have to have more detail as to what Kavanaugh means by criminal investigation.

If Kavanaugh had withdrawn, it would have been the next step towards recreating the fall of the Roman Republic. Roman politicians routinely were accused of the most appalling and low crimes, from raping their own children and even worse things. It was never true, of course, but these allegations were designed to accomplish one thing and one thing only: They were meant to damage a rival's dignitas. Without dignitas, a man was held to be worthless, of no substance, not to be trusted with any power or responsibility in the public sphere.

Dignitas (Roman concept) - Wikipedia


TLDR, the Dems tried to destroy a man's dignitas. They have failed. One should bear in mind that Julius Caesar overthrew the entire established Roman political order and killed tens of thousands of his fellow citizens over insults to his dignitas.

Kaon said:

Kavanaugh believes no sitting president can be indicted.

He is going to be confirmed; the antics were exactly that, and for our entertainment. If he doesn't get confirmed, it will be the worst case scenario.

Click to expand...

Told you so. I am not a genius; this is predicable politics.