- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,570
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What does democracy have to do with the Senate and it’s advice and consent powers?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because the Republicans made it clear that they would never consider any President Obama nominee. Yep sure sounds like Democracy to me. [sarcasm/]
Oh yeah they did. The Dems literally had nothing on the guy up until two weeks ago, when they decided to leak the letter to attempt to delay the vote past November.
I did not state that and I do not know. But is it possible? Heck yeah.
Could someone have found a person in his social circle and paid her to alter her story to implicate Kavanaugh?
Sure, it sounds crazy, but we have seen politicians illegally sell arms to fund rebel groups in foreign countries, literally break in and burglarize documents from your political opponents, all types of crazy stuff.
I personally would not put anything past these folks.
Yes. Of course they leaked it on purpose. One has to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.They leaked it on purpose?
No, neither Judge Kavanaugh nor any of the GOP Senators has made that assertion.Of course... it's the party line.
No, human cloning has not yet been made possible (and yes, I realize you are being sarcastic).Could they have cloned her in a lab using the DNA of Biblical Jezebel?
Obviously I know that that those actions were done by GOP politicians. One has to be extremely naive to believe that only GOP politicians are deceitful and capable of evil. And I am not defending the GOP. I am not a Republican. In my opinion most politicians, be they Republicans or Democrats, are immoral and power hungry.Not for nothing, but both those actions were done by the political party you're defending.
I never said that. It is possible that Kavanaugh has attempted to rape her or someone else, although there is currently no strong evidence to indicate that he has.Except attempted rape?
I'm guessing you haven't worked much with traumatized teenaged girls. Am I correct?That’s debatable. Given the inconsistency in her behavior, it’s not “perfectly understandable.”
Another potential problem with her testimony is she recalled hearing the boys laugh, but they turned the music up loud enough to drown any screams by her. To be sure, this paradox may have a rational resolution but none was given by her, and neither was this paradox probed.
Do you mean other than the fact they are elected in part to perform that function?What does democracy have to do with the Senate and it’s advice and consent powers?
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdfDo you? Do you have the scientific numbers?
Yes. Of course they leaked it on purpose. One has to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.
No, neither Judge Kavanaugh nor any of the GOP Senators has made that assertion.
No, human cloning has not yet been made possible (and yes, I realize you are being sarcastic).
Obviously I know that that those actions were done by GOP politicians. One has to be extremely naive to believe that only GOP politicians are deceitful and capable of evil. And I am not defending the GOP. I am not a Republican. In my opinion most politicians, be they Republicans or Democrats, are immoral and power hungry.
I never said that. It is possible that Kavanaugh has attempted to rape her or someone else, although there is currently no strong evidence to indicate that he has.
I'm guessing you haven't worked much with traumatized teenaged girls. Am I correct?
Yes.I never said they did... but you have heard it, have you not?
There is none, from what I understand.And the evidence that Dr. Ford has been hired by the dems as part of a plot?
Do you mean other than the fact they are elected in part to perform that function?
I looked at her go fund me account. She has collected half a million for expenses and $200,000 for her protection, security guards. Lots of people would love to be a monkey on that banana boat. She is pretty much making one million dollars per hour of testimony.Not according to her testimony. According to her testimony when asked if she had paid for it she stated she wasn't sure, then said she wasn't sure who paid for it, then had to be told.
Wonderful then in your 13 years I'm sure you encountered enough traumatized teenaged girls to know that their behavior is often counter-intuitive to common sense. That is precisely the point I was making.No. As a 13 year assistant district attorney, never.
To the contrary, I’ve dealt with traumatized girls, 10 to 17, and women from 18-64. I’ve dealt with male victims, rape, murder, attempted murder, aggravated battery, confinement, domestic battery, battery with serious bodily injury, I’ve just about prosecuted every crime in our jurisdiction that involves victims, tramatized and otherwise.
But this isn’t so much about their behavior. Their behavior can certainly form a basis of opinion in evaluating Ford’s behavior, but it’s not dispositive. Ford’s behavior is still peculiar in some areas.
If I remember correctly it is on page 2 of the synopsis that reports 1900 erroneous convictions of only 3 specific crimes. Perhaps you bristle at the word "games." Fair enough, the post I was responding to was referring to skillful prosecutors and their ability to bring forth truth. I will amend my comment to include "skill" instead of "games."That’s edifying information, but tell me which part supports your claim of “innocent people” prosecuted as a result of a “good prosecutor’s games.”
That's not what I wrote. Democracy requires the Senate consider candidates put forth by the President, not to rubber stamp them. The Senate refused to even consider the President's nominee in committee. That is a dereliction of duty.Oh? Democracy dictates they approve of candidates nominated by the President?
And here I deluded myself into thinking the Constitution vested to the Senate the power to refuse any presidential nominee, including any number of them, as a check on presidential power. Who knew? Apparently the drafters of the Constitution, and the authors of the Federalist Papers, who asserted the power to approve of Presidential nominees is solely with the Senate and a check on executive power.
Do you? Do you have the scientific numbers?
Do you have any idea how many innocent people have been prosecuted due to "a good prosecutor's" games?
That's not what I wrote. Democracy requires the Senate consider candidates put forth by the President, not to rubber stamp them. The Senate refused to even consider the President's nominee in committee. That is a dereliction of duty.
Wonderful then in your 13 years I'm sure you encountered enough traumatized teenaged girls to know that their behavior is often counter-intuitive to common sense. That is precisely the point I was making.
The facts that it is a responsibility of the Congress and that there is a stated and codified process for doing so confers that it is a "duty." What is dubious however is your statement "Of course, the Senate arguably gave its advice and consent, which was no nominees until after the presidential election."And where is this duty created?
It’s certainly not the Constitution because the Constitution doesn’t mandate the Senate do anything with a President’s nominee. The Constitution doesn’t require the Senate “to even consider” any person nominated by the President.
This notion democracy creates this duty is dubious. Democracy concerns a form of government in which the electorate vote for people to represent them in government or they directly represent themselves, the latter called direct democracy. Democracy generally doesn’t provide any guidance as to what the representative should or must do in executing governmental power for any particular scenario (other than perhaps listen to a particular electorate), and not whether the Senate must consider presidential nominees.
Of course, the Senate arguably gave its advice and consent, which was no nominees until after the presidential election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?