1
1
0
“The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the moninee,” the board’s resolution stated. “That burden is not met as long as there are unresolved questions regarding the credible allegations of sexual assault.”
“The organization’s national board of directors passed a resolution opposing Kavanaugh, citing “credible allegations” that the nominee “engaged in serious misconduct” against Christine Blasey Ford and others.”
And now we know positively that the ACLU does not support the Constitution of the United States NOR the protections afforded therein.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
“The organization’s national board of directors passed a resolution opposing Kavanaugh, citing “credible allegations” that the nominee “engaged in serious misconduct” against Christine Blasey Ford and others.”
And now we know positively that the ACLU does not support the Constitution of the United States NOR the protections afforded therein.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
ar-BBNIoHE
Posted from msn.com
Congress
Justice
Supreme Court
Sexual Assault
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
July 10, 2018
Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) announced he would oppose anyone Trump nominated, no matter who it was, while Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) declared on MSNBC last month we are looking at the "destruction of the Constitution of the United States" if Trump got his pick.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii), in a misguided application of the so-called "McConnell Rule," flatly said on CNN on June 27 she wouldn't consider any nominee of Trump.
"But don't you want to see who the president nominates first before deciding flatly there should be no confirmation vote between now and the midterm elections?" Wolf Blitzer asked.
"No, it doesn't matter who he is putting forward," she said.
https://freebeacon.com/blog/liberals-are-furious-over-the-nomination-of-insert-name-here-to-supreme-court/
Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) announced he would oppose anyone Trump nominated, no matter who it was, while Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) declared on MSNBC last month we are looking at the "destruction of the Constitution of the United States" if Trump got his pick.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii), in a misguided application of the so-called "McConnell Rule," flatly said on CNN on June 27 she wouldn't consider any nominee of Trump.
"But don't you want to see who the president nominates first before deciding flatly there should be no confirmation vote between now and the midterm elections?" Wolf Blitzer asked.
"No, it doesn't matter who he is putting forward," she said.
https://freebeacon.com/blog/liberals-are-furious-over-the-nomination-of-insert-name-here-to-supreme-court/
Liberals Are Furious Over the Nomination of [Insert Name Here] to Supreme Court
Behold the rallying cry of a new generation of manufactured outrage: "Stop [blank]!"
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
amazing every word of what you just said was wrong
amazing every word of what you just said was wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRS1dwCotw
Both of those amendments deal with criminal prosecutions, not confirmation hearings.
Both of those amendments deal with criminal prosecutions, not confirmation hearings.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(1)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSG Robert Webster - gee, are your feelings hurt? Maybe if you were misinforming people on the law, and acting like you know what you were talking about, I wouldn't be condescending. But what you post is legal BS, not even close to being correct.
For a SCOTUS nominee at a confirmation hearing, there is no right to due process, no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, no right of confrontation, and so on. The Senate can use whatever standards that it wants to advise and consent (or not) on a Presidential nomination. The nominee has no "rights" in this, other than a right to remain silent, which also normally means that the nominee will be rejected.
The downvote is for the disrespectful language.
For a SCOTUS nominee at a confirmation hearing, there is no right to due process, no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, no right of confrontation, and so on. The Senate can use whatever standards that it wants to advise and consent (or not) on a Presidential nomination. The nominee has no "rights" in this, other than a right to remain silent, which also normally means that the nominee will be rejected.
The downvote is for the disrespectful language.
(1)
(1)
SSG Robert Webster
Interesting however your interpretation is also incorrect. The Senate itself through the Judiciary Committee even contradicted your statement in multiple ways.
It is also interesting that some of those same Senators that have much more experience as lawyers and judges contradict your belief, and it seems as though it is about a 50-50 split. It is also interesting that in this debacle that some Senators are calling for charges to be brought in some of the proven false allegations.
It is also interesting that some of those same Senators that have much more experience as lawyers and judges contradict your belief, and it seems as though it is about a 50-50 split. It is also interesting that in this debacle that some Senators are calling for charges to be brought in some of the proven false allegations.
(0)
(1)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSG Robert Webster - Really? My interpretation is supported by SCOTUS, which stated "The Constitution commits to the Senate the power to make its own rules; and it is not the function of the Court to say that another rule would be better." United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6, 48 (1932) (in a confirmation hearing case). The Senate can establish whatever rules they want to establish for these hearings, but there is no Constitutional requirement for Due Process in the hearing, which is what you claimed. Nor did the Senate contradict anything that I presented on the law.
I'm not the only one to point this out, either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaughs-senate-hearing-isnt-a-trial-the-standard-isnt-reasonable-doubt/2018/09/20/1eb1ee34-bd15-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.077212f916db
Remind me, what law school did you attend, and when did you sit for the bar?
I'm not the only one to point this out, either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaughs-senate-hearing-isnt-a-trial-the-standard-isnt-reasonable-doubt/2018/09/20/1eb1ee34-bd15-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.077212f916db
Remind me, what law school did you attend, and when did you sit for the bar?
Perspective | Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing isn’t a trial. The standard isn’t ‘reasonable doubt.’
The confirmation process, including sexual assault allegations, is a job interview.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google