Did Judge Kavanaugh

[Starbuck1975]

You know, I had listed a detailed response but nearing submission I deleted it. Instead, I will leave you with the following query and not entertain any other words until you respond yes or no:

Is intentional lying (perjury) during a confirmation hearing ever an acceptable means of defending oneself?

Intentionally, no.

My turn. Do you think its acceptable for Senators to turn confirmation hearings into kangaroo courts to further their own political ambitions? Yes or no is fine.

 

[pcgeek11]

We can work with that, but I'm curious why you think such a difficult standard is the right one in this situation. Given the paucity of physical evidence and psychological trauma experienced by rape victims, we know applying this standard leads to justice for less than 1%.

In my opinion "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a minimum standard that should be met under any accusation.

 

[pcgeek11]

Think of the man's career instead of the victims of sexual assault who's lives he's forever altered. Obviously, a man's career is more important.

/s

Well you Don't Know that he sexually assaulted anyone. Nothing was proven one way or the other. Just a bunch of he said she said.

 

[pcgeek11]

Are y'all aware that the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence"?

Are you aware that he asked me what I would be willing to accept?


Ant there was no evidence other than verbal he said she said.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well you Don't Know that he sexually assaulted anyone. Nothing was proven one way or the other. Just a bunch of he said she said.

Guess a week of investigation was enough to settle it....lol. derp.

 

[interchange]

My turn. Do you think its acceptable for Senators to turn confirmation hearings into kangaroo courts to further their own political ambitions? Yes or no is fine.

I think there is no obvious meaning of "kangaroo courts" and "acceptable" in this particular query. Not really a definition for acceptable but an idea what the consequences means. E.g. if it is not acceptable does that mean that the confirmation goes through without any look at the evidence?

If you are asking if I believe that it is moral to intentionally operate against the spirit of a Congressional hearing, then no. If you're asking if I believe that it is moral to engage in activity during a Congressional hearing to further your own political agenda in conflict with the interest of the country, then no.

In my opinion "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a minimum standard that should be met under any accusation.

Minimum standard? What standard and when should something stronger ever apply?

 

[pcgeek11]

Guess a week of investigation was enough to settle it....lol. derp.

Does that mean that he knows it was?

I'll help you out.

No, it doesn't.

 

[ElFenix]

Are you aware that he asked me what I would be willing to accept?


Ant there was no evidence other than verbal he said she said.

my question for you is why are you demanding a higher level of evidence than would be necessary for him to be civilly liable for this same act?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Does that mean that he knows it was?

I'll help you out.

No, it doesn't.

You're reply doesn't make sense. Try again old man.

GOP had a big ole list to choose from, this was their guy, case closed. Deal with it, and all the baggage that comes with it. Kavanaugh will be forever marked by the way the appointment played out, that was your teams choosing.

 

[pcgeek11]

I think there is no obvious meaning of "kangaroo courts" and "acceptable" in this particular query. Not really a definition for acceptable but an idea what the consequences means. E.g. if it is not acceptable does that mean that the confirmation goes through without any look at the evidence?

If you are asking if I believe that it is moral to intentionally operate against the spirit of a Congressional hearing, then no. If you're asking if I believe that it is moral to engage in activity during a Congressional hearing to further your own political agenda in conflict with the interest of the country, then no.



Minimum standard? What standard and when should something stronger ever apply?

I think if you are accused of some act, then the minimum acceptable standard to say that the accusation against you is true is that it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key word being reasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship (1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

 

[pcgeek11]

You're reply doesn't make sense. Try again old man.

GOP had a big ole list to choose from, this was their guy, case closed. Deal with it, and all the baggage that comes with it. Kavanaugh will be forever marked by the way the appointment played out, that was your teams choosing.

I'm not the one whinning about his appointment.

I'm fine with it. You deal with it.

 

[pcgeek11]

my question for you is why are you demanding a higher level of evidence than would be necessary for him to be civilly liable for this same act?

Sexual assault and attempted rape is not a civil offense.

 

[fskimospy]

I think if you are accused of some act, then the minimum acceptable standard to say that the accusation against you is true is that it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key word being reasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship (1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

None of that applies as he is not being charged with a crime, he was being interviewed for a job.

As others have mentioned your standard for denying him a job is higher than the actual legal standard that could force him to pay thousands or millions in a court judgment.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[fskimospy]

Sexual assault and attempted rape is not a civil offense.

This is false. They are criminal offenses but they are also torts.

Consent and Sexual Assault in Criminal v. Tort Law - The ALI Adviser

In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, NYU Law’s Erin Murphy and UC Irvine Law’s Ken Simons explore the difference between criminal law and tort law in the United States and then focus on how “consent” is, and should be, defined in sexual assault allegations.

www.thealiadviser.org

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm not the one whinning about his appointment.

I'm fine with it. You deal with it.

Then what's with all the posting? You certainly seem worked up about the SCOTUS' very own Roy Moore.

 

[interchange]

I think if you are accused of some act, then the minimum acceptable standard to say that the accusation against you is true is that it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key word being reasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship (1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

So you are not saying there is a higher standard. Just that beyond reasonable doubt is the standard you advocate for all accusations.

In any setting? That becomes ridiculous pretty quickly.

 

[pcgeek11]

None of that applies as he is not being charged with a crime, he was being interviewed for a job.

As others have mentioned your standard for denying him a job is higher than the actual legal standard that could force him to pay thousands or millions in a court judgment.

Does that make sense to you?

He was accused of a criminal offense ( sexual assault and attempted rape ) even though it was in protest of his appointment to the SCOTUS.

There was no proof of any wrong doing other than she said so.

 

[pcgeek11]

Then what's with all the posting? You certainly seem worked up about the SCOTUS' very own Roy Moore.

Why are you posting? Out of concern?
Roy Moore?

I don't know what you are implying, but I was never a Roy Moore supporter.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You know, I had listed a detailed response but nearing submission I deleted it. Instead, I will leave you with the following query and not entertain any other words until you respond yes or no:

Is intentional lying (perjury) during a confirmation hearing ever an acceptable means of defending oneself?

Intentionally, no.

My turn. Do you think its acceptable for Senators to turn confirmation hearings into kangaroo courts to further their own political ambitions? Yes or no is fine.

Haha, you can't unintentionally commit perjury.

 

[pcgeek11]

So you are not saying there is a higher standard. Just that beyond reasonable doubt is the standard you advocate for all accusations.

In any setting? That becomes ridiculous pretty quickly.

In a civil accusation the requirement would be less as is common practice such as a preponderance of the evidence.

What he was accused of were criminal offenses.

Also what I stated was that beyond a reasonable doubt is the minimum standard IMO for a criminal accusation conviction.

Are you saying it should be less?

 

[fskimospy]

In a civil accusation the requirement would be less as is common practice such as a preponderance of the evidence.

What he was accused of were criminal offenses.

Also what I stated was that beyond a reasonable doubt is the minimum standard IMO for a criminal accusation conviction.

Are you saying it should be less?

They are also civil offenses as you were already shown.

Since he was not indicted he was not being accused of a criminal offense. This is a fact that can’t be denied.

 

[ElFenix]

Sexual assault and attempted rape is not a civil offense.

In a civil accusation the requirement would be less as is common practice such as a preponderance of the evidence.

What he was accused of were criminal offenses.

Also what I stated was that beyond a reasonable doubt is the minimum standard IMO for a criminal accusation conviction.

Are you saying it should be less?

we're not talking about a criminal court. you can be both civilly liable and criminally liable for the same acts. or civilly liable but not criminally liable. you know, that whole OJ simpson thing.

and let's keep in mind this isn't even civil liability, either. this is whether he should keep a job.

so, again, my question for you is, why should the level of proof necessary to have/keep a job be the same as whether he should go to jail?

 

[interchange]

In a civil accusation the requirement would be less as is common practice such as a preponderance of the evidence.

What he was accused of were criminal offenses.

Also what I stated was that beyond a reasonable doubt is the minimum standard IMO for a criminal accusation conviction.

Are you saying it should be less?

It should be beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction.

What makes something a criminal conviction is not based on what is being proven. Did you know that you could sue someone for emotional distress caused by rape? In that court the standard to prove the rape (and the emotional damages) occurred would be preponderance of the evidence.

As an example, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. Yet he was ordered via civil trial to pay $33.5M in compensatory and punitive damages to the victims' families.

But in this case, we are talking about a job offer.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well you Don't Know that he sexually assaulted anyone. Nothing was proven one way or the other. Just a bunch of he said she said.

The standard of evidence for a job interview with a lifetime appointment is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Stop being a dipshit and acting like that's what it is. The truth of the matter was that there were credible accusations leveled; it was not just "he said, she said". And then instead of owning up to his past deeds, Kavanaugh cried, lashed out like a spoiled little boy loaded to the hilt with white male privilege, and lied (aka, committed perjury) in his testimony to the Senate. Sounds just like the type of person you'd want seated a judge to the highest court in the land.

Why couldn't the Republicans find someone who hadn't all these issues in their past and present? These issues didn't come up with Gorsuch. I'm sure they could have found some other white man with a conservative bent who didn't have these issues. And it's not like Kavanaugh would have been out of a job and living in a box. He was a fucking appeals court judge for the DC circuit, only the second most powerful court in the US which also happens to come with a lifetime appointment.

 

[pcgeek11]

we're not talking about a criminal court. you can be both civilly liable and criminally liable for the same acts. or civilly liable but not criminally liable. you know, that whole OJ simpson thing.

and let's keep in mind this isn't even civil liability, either. this is whether he should keep a job.

so, again, my question for you is, why should the level of proof necessary to have/keep a job be the same as whether he should go to jail?

These are serious offenses regardless of how you and ski want to call them civil, criminal...
In order to wreck someones life I would think more than "your feels" should be required. You know like actual real evidence.