J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, zapatos said: From your link... What law do you think was not being followed in this process? Where did I say there was any? Thus...Kavanaugh is now in the SCOTUS i.e. ...Hirono did not get her way... Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
zapatos Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Where did I say there was any? Thus...Kavanaugh is now in the SCOTUS i.e. ...Hirono did not get her way... So if the process we've been following has not interfered with Due Process, then why have we been talking about it for 21 pages? When Ten oz says he believes Ford would not be likely to falsely accuse someone, there does not have to be proof he is guilty of anything to not vote for him. No proof is necessary he committed assault. If the process we follow to confirm or deny does not involve Due Process, then it needs to be removed from our conversation, and it should not be used as a shield for Kavanaugh. 2
NicholaiRen Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, zapatos said: So if the process we've been following has not interfered with Due Process, then why have we been talking about it for 21 pages? When Ten oz says he believes Ford would not be likely to falsely accuse someone, there does not have to be proof he is guilty of anything to not vote for him. No proof is necessary he committed assault. If the process we follow to confirm or deny does not involve Due Process, then it needs to be removed from our conversation, and it should not be used as a shield for Kavanaugh. I do believe you probably sexually assaulted someone during your lifetime. Luckily for you, none of us will ever know because no proof is necessary on my part, as long as we're not in court. It's not like there is a social formality or anything where we expect evidence to be provided before we completely believe someone. Either way, I do agree with iNow. This debate has run its course and largely, all of us agree on the basics. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate, however, I will be moving on with this thread. Good luck guys. Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen
CharonY Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: I do believe you probably sexually assaulted someone during your lifetime. Luckily for you, none of us will ever know because no proof is necessary on my part, as long as we're not in court. It's not like there is a social formality or anything where we expect evidence to be provided before we completely believe someone. According to some posters you just ruined his life, you are a liar (given context that seems actually to be the case) and you should be put in jail for the same sentence as someone having conducted assault. Either that, or you missed the entire point. Just as a note, in case you are unaware. In a job interview you can talk to folks that have interacted with a candidate. Often it is supervisors and/or colleagues. From their statement you get a view on the candidate that you can use as you (or the committee) sees fit. There is no need for them to present evidence for their claims (positive or negative) there is no requirement for due process and there is no legal procedure involved. Edited October 10, 2018 by CharonY 1
zapatos Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 45 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: I do believe you probably sexually assaulted someone during your lifetime. Luckily for you, none of us will ever know because no proof is necessary on my part, as long as we're not in court. It's not like there is a social formality or anything where we expect evidence to be provided before we completely believe someone. There is not even a LEGAL formality where we have to completely believe someone.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 hour ago, zapatos said: So if the process we've been following has not interfered with Due Process, then why have we been talking about it for 21 pages? When Ten oz says he believes Ford would not be likely to falsely accuse someone, there does not have to be proof he is guilty of anything to not vote for him. No proof is necessary he committed assault. If the process we follow to confirm or deny does not involve Due Process, then it needs to be removed from our conversation, and it should not be used as a shield for Kavanaugh. Agree. But Kavanaugh got voted in. Trump said he was proven innocent, which of course was nonsense, he was not even declared or proven not guilty. He did however, get the job while due process was followed, convoluted as it may have been.
CharonY Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: due process was followed, No it hasn't. It was not a judicial process and by definition he may be subject to senate proceedings and rules but not to "due process". There is no rendering of verdicts just, at best, an evaluation of the candidate. The rules are entirely different from judicial rules in a trial.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, CharonY said: According to some posters you just ruined his life, you are a liar (given context that seems actually to be the case) and you should be put in jail for the same sentence as someone having conducted assault. Either that, or you missed the entire point. Just as a note, in case you are unaware. In a job interview you can talk to folks that have interacted with a candidate. Often it is supervisors and/or colleagues. From their statement you get a view on the candidate that you can use as you (or the committee) sees fit. There is no need for them to present evidence for their claims (positive or negative) there is no requirement for due process and there is no legal procedure involved. There is. For good reason. I cannot for instance ask their sexual orientation, or advertise for whites or males only (some exceptions notwithstanding) 11 minutes ago, CharonY said: No it hasn't. It was not a judicial process and by definition he may be subject to senate proceedings and rules but not to "due process". There is no rendering of verdicts just, at best, an evaluation of the candidate. The rules are entirely different from judicial rules in a trial. "Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process It does not only apply to a trial And here is the OP (I bolded paragraph 2) for anyone questioning why due process is being discussed On 9/22/2018 at 8:35 PM, MigL said: This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court, nor whether he is innocent or not of the accusations levelled against him ( and certainly not about D Trump ).The issue I want to discuss is whether the MeToo movement has made Due Process a thing of the past. It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Have we, in our rush to provide a level playing field for victims of sexual assault, taken away the rights of a group of people ( males ) to a fair trial ? The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed. Is this the kind of 'new justice' system we need/want ? And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men. Men are human and a certain number of them will do vile things. But women are only human too and a certain number of them will use this 'new justice' for their own vile ends. Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
CharonY Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: cannot for instance ask their sexual orientation, or advertise for whites or males only (some exceptions notwithstanding) As per your own link due process protects individuals from the powers of the state. That above example is a specific law that allows legal discourse in cases of discrimination. I.e. it would be the same as claiming that non-stealing is part of due process due to the existence of anti-theft laws. It just does not make sense. Quote It does not only apply to a trial Please take a look at your own link: Quote Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law. Quote Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It is a protection of liberties from the actions of the government. Here, we have a Senate hearing with no legal consequences. How does due process get involved here? There are no civil or criminal proceedings at all. There is no prosecution from the state or the feds.The call for due process and presumption of innocence sounds good, but both have a specific meaning in relationship to the judicial process. Otherwise we may as well claim that cutting line at a fast food joint is a breach of due process. Edited October 10, 2018 by CharonY omitted words (dementia onset?) 2
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, CharonY said: As per your own link due process protects individuals for the powers of the state. That example is specific law that allows legal discourse in cases of discrimination. I.e. it would be the same as claiming that non stealing is part of due process due to the existence of anti-theft laws. It just does not make sense. Please take a look at your own link: It is a protection of liberties from the actions of the government. Here, we have a Senate hearing with no legal consequences. How does due process get involved here. There are no civil or criminal proceedings at all. There is prosecution from the state or the feds.The call for due process and presumption of innocence sound good, but have a specific meaning in relationship to the judicial process. Otherwise we may as well claim that cutting line at a fast food joint is a breach of due process. Thanks CharonY. You are correct. 1
Ten oz Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) The OP asked if the #metoo movement has made innocent till proven guilty a thing of the past. The answer seems to be an obvious NO. The Senate totally ignored a couple of Kavanaugh's accusers entirety neither hearing from them at committee or allowing them included in the FBI investigation. Ford herself wasn't questioned. So MigL got his answer and it seems to be the answer he wanted yet the insistence in this thread by some that men are or could be guilty till proven innocent just keeps trucking along unphased. Edited October 10, 2018 by Ten oz
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The OP asked if the #metoo movement has made innocent till proven guilty a thing of the past. The answer seems to be an obvious NO. The Senate totally ignored a couple of Kavanaugh's accusers entirety neither hearing from them at committee or allowing them included in the FBI investigation. Ford herself wasn't questioned. So MigL got his answer and it seems to be the answer he wanted yet the insistence in this thread by some that men are or could be guilty till proven innocent just keeps trucking along unphased. As I said earlier, what we have discussed, rush to judgement, due process, and guilty until proven innocent (as we know them) are going to be significant election issues. You will be hearing a lot of rhetoric from both parties on this issue. So maybe we all now agree on this, at least generally (you kept us in suspense for a while), but unfortunately our moderate position doesn't make for a good "chant". It will get drowned out by those lead by the Trumps and Hironos. Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
CharonY Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 44 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The OP asked if the #metoo movement has made innocent till proven guilty a thing of the past. The answer seems to be an obvious NO. More specifically, it is not a proper litmus test as it does not challenge judicial procedure. At all. On a broader scale, perception of folks have never been been under any rule even close to the judicial system. There is no due process involved in forming the opinion of one person. In addition, harmful claims made in public are not protected by free speech laws. Thus libel or slander laws can be applied. So while metoo has gotten a lot of press, there is no indication that a) baseless claims of assaults have increased meaningfully in number and b) that folks faced legal consequences without due process. So either way, the answer seems quite clearly and resoundingly that no, there is no indication that #metoo has caused any of the claimed effects. However, it did contribute to a shift to what we as society consider to be decent behaviour, especially with regard to harassment with power imbalance. 2
Ten oz Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: It will get drowned out by those lead by the Trumps and Hironos. Trump says far worse things nearly everyday than Hirono has every said. Your equivalency is absurd. 2
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Trump says far worse things nearly everyday than Hirono has every said. Your equivalency is absurd. LOL, I agree. It felt odd putting them in the same sentence. They've (Democrats have) been uncivil more by committee. Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
rangerx Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 The tactic is to attack one's attacker, accusing them of doing what one's actually doing, knowing it gets under their skin.
iNow Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) And now for some lighter (but disconcertingly accurate) fare: Edited October 11, 2018 by iNow 1
Ten oz Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 Quote WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts is referring ethics complaints against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to federal judges in Colorado and neighboring states. The complaints deal with statements Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearings. They were filed originally with Kavanaugh's old court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts took no action on them while Kavanaugh's nomination was pending. He received the first three of 15 eventual complaints on Sept. 20, a week before Kavanaugh's angry denial of a sexual assault allegation by Christine Blasey Ford. https://www.yahoo.com/news/roberts-asks-federal-judges-handle-kavanaugh-complaints-214948759--politics.html
Ten oz Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 Conservatives have taken to chanting "lock her up" directed at Sen. Feinstein (Here) and a man has been detained for threatening to KILL Sen. Feinstein (Here). Despite the insistence by some that men are unjustly harmed when accused of sexual assault it would seem people are negatively impact on all sides. Kavanaugh has a lifetime appointment and Feinstein is receiving death threats.
iNow Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 Why do you hate due process, Ten Oz?!? It’s a sad state of affairs, summarized nicely by this song (“A Scary Time for Boys”): 2
zapatos Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, iNow said: Why do you hate due process, Ten Oz?!? It’s a sad state of affairs, summarized nicely by this song (“A Scary Time for Boys”): Outstanding. I'm sending that to everyone. Thanks for linking it.
iNow Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: Outstanding. I'm sending that to everyone. Thanks for linking it. You bet. There's a version on FB that has captions. Magnifies the impact being able to read her words while listening, but still impactful without.
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, iNow said: It’s a sad state of affairs, summarized nicely by this song (“A Scary Time for Boys”): Oh, that's fantastic! I agree with zapatos, that goes out to everyone I know. I hope it can help men think beyond personal bad experiences they've had with individual women to grasp the larger concept of this movement, and what women in general have to deal with daily.
MigL Posted October 12, 2018 Author Posted October 12, 2018 On a somewhat related note, some charges against H Weinstein in New York state, brought by L Evans, have been dropped. Not because he is innocent ( or guilty ) of them, but because of mishandling/coaching of the accuser's statement/testimony. ( thank goodness there are quite a few accusers/charges, otherwise Harvey might get a Supreme Court appointment too )
iNow Posted October 12, 2018 Posted October 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, MigL said: ( thank goodness there are quite a few accusers/charges, otherwise Harvey might get a Supreme Court appointment too ) rimshot!
Recommended Posts