Did Judge Kavanaugh

[fskimospy]

The wikipedia article on impeachment defines the process as a trial, analogous to charges brought by a grand jury, and for which the legislative branch considers evidence. That sounds like due process to me.

It is not. Congress is not required to hold any sort of trial if it does not wish to. If it felt like it the House could vote this afternoon to impeach Kavanaugh without holding a single hearing or providing any evidence and the Senate could convict him ten minutes later, also without holding a single hearing or providing any evidence.

If you were to be imprisoned as the result of a process where that happened your conviction would be overturned as a violation of your Constitutional right to due process. As no one has any due process rights in regards to federal employment and Congress retains the exclusive authority over impeachment 1) the right to it doesn't exist and 2) requiring it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Victorian Gray]

My standards for due process are high.

Your "standards". ROFLMFAO

 

[zinfamous]

Kavanaugh and every other nominee for SCOTUS is entitled to exactly zero due process in regards to their confirmation.

I want to be very clear on this - they get ZERO. -

This is explicitly how the Constitution is designed and to insert due process requirements into it would subvert the intent of the advice and consent clause.

conservatives follow standards that they don't expect the rest of the world to follow (or understand). They just make them up as they go along, demand that everyone fall in line and accept them, at their whim, however their mood strikes them, and can revert back to the contradicting standard on a dime!

Conveniently, such standards are always aligned with whatever benefits them the most in the moment which, curiously, somehow can't always be distinguished from how it simply screws the other guy, regardless of how it effects them in any way.

 

[pcgeek11]

does that make you noble or something? plenty of people do things "because they want to"...

If you would learn to read and follow along you would have learned that:


fskimospy said this:

I wish you guys would just admit you voted for Trump because you wanted to. Yes it's shameful but just own your shame!

I responded to his wish:

I voted for Trump because I wanted too.

I've said it before...

Feel Better?

Keep up or take notes!

I found a good video for Democrats:

 

[Starbuck1975]

It is not. Congress is not required to hold any sort of trial if it does not wish to. If it felt like it the House could vote this afternoon to impeach Kavanaugh without holding a single hearing or providing any evidence and the Senate could convict him ten minutes later, also without holding a single hearing or providing any evidence.

If you were to be imprisoned as the result of a process where that happened your conviction would be overturned as a violation of your Constitutional right to due process. As no one has any due process rights in regards to federal employment and Congress retains the exclusive authority over impeachment 1) the right to it doesn't exist and 2) requiring it would be unconstitutional.

That is simply not true. Article II explicitly limits grounds of impeachment to treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and Congress conducts a trial, but “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the applicable standard.

 

[interchange]

Kavanaugh might get fired from his job. So might Trump. These aren't things that relate to due process at least as part of the bill of rights. But the Constitution does describe aspects of a process for impeachment and removal from office. When Democratics talk about defining a process that fairly evaluates these decisions it is not out of need to provide due process, but there may still be desire that it is right to provide it nonetheless.

But it seems also that it is thrown around without even knowing what it means. It means the government can't take something that is yours -- a freedom or possession or your life -- without some form of protection e.g. procedure to adjudicate, requirement that laws not be too vague or exceed reasonable power of the government.

In this case, a job is not a possession or a freedom. You are not implicitly entitled to keep a job. They can't without due process take your money or prevent you from the freedom to seek future employment. But the privilege to be hired for a position or to remain in a position are not protected by due process. The senate has full authority to decide on whatever criteria or evidentiary standard they want to apply in voting to confirm Presidential appointments.

 

[fskimospy]

That is simply not true. Article II explicitly limits grounds of impeachment to treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and Congress conducts a trial, but “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the applicable standard.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

What ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are is whatever Congress says it is as they have the sole power of impeachment. Also a ‘trial’ is whatever they say it is, meaning they get they could simply have a vote.

Again, there is simply no Constitutional due process protections for impeached officials. To repeat, the House can impeach them without ever presenting a single piece of evidence and the Senate can convict based on the same.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

What ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are is whatever Congress says it is as they have the sole power of impeachment. Also a ‘trial’ is whatever they say it is, meaning they get they could simply have a vote.

Again, there is simply no Constitutional due process protections for impeached officials. To repeat, the House can impeach them without ever presenting a single piece of evidence and the Senate can convict based on the same.

You are incorrect. There are three components to Congressional authority for impeachment.

Congress investigates to determine if there is adequate evidence to execute their powers.

The House votes by simple majority to impeach, and thereby bring formal charges.

The Senate then conducts a trial. The elected official then needs to be found guilty to be removed from office.

You’re playing a semantics game. There is a process, bounded by precedence and quite a bit of scholarly debate.

Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily remove people from office. That is why the Democrats are building a case against Trump. This is why they will not pursue impeachment of Kavanaugh.

 

[fskimospy]

You are incorrect. There are three components to Congressional authority for impeachment.

Congress investigates to determine if there is adequate evidence to execute their powers.

The House votes by simple majority to impeach, and thereby bring formal charges.

The Senate then conducts a trial. The elected official then needs to be found guilty to be removed from office.

You’re playing a semantics game. There is a process, bounded by precedence and quite a bit of scholarly debate.

Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily remove people from office. That is why the Democrats are building a case against Trump. This is why they will not pursue impeachment of Kavanaugh.

I don’t know what else to say other than you don’t know what you’re talking about. The trial is whatever the Senate says it is, which could be nothing.

Congress impeaches and convicts by its own standards and if anything you’re playing semantics here. Nothing even remotely resembling what people think of as due process applies.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

What ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are is whatever Congress says it is as they have the sole power of impeachment. Also a ‘trial’ is whatever they say it is, meaning they get they could simply have a vote.

Again, there is simply no Constitutional due process protections for impeached officials. To repeat, the House can impeach them without ever presenting a single piece of evidence and the Senate can convict based on the same.

Which is a scary fairy tale scenario here in reality. The process must at least appear to be fair & honest to the voters & the need beyond obvious. Congress can't discredit themselves in the process.

 

[dank69]

Which is a scary fairy tale scenario here in reality. The process must at least appear to be fair & honest to the voters & the need beyond obvious. Congress can't discredit themselves in the process.

Didn't seem to hurt Republicans in 2000.

 

[Jhhnn]

Didn't seem to hurt Republicans in 2000.

That's because they didn't actually do it. Lying under oath about marital infidelity was judged insufficient cause by the Senate. They didn't even get a majority to vote for it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don’t know what else to say other than you don’t know what you’re talking about. The trial is whatever the Senate says it is, which could be nothing.

Congress impeaches and convicts by its own standards and if anything you’re playing semantics here. Nothing even remotely resembling what people think of as due process applies.

If that were the case, there would be historic precedence of Congress extensively exercising that power. If anything, history indicates restraint, procedure, evidence and yes, even public opinion.

Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily impeach the President. The Constitution bounds the conditions that warrant it.

Who presides over the Senate trial?

The only thing you are correct about is that there is no set procedure for the Senate trial. Senators then cast a vote as would the members of a jury.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's because they didn't actually do it. Lying under oath about marital infidelity was judged insufficient cause by the Senate. They didn't even get a majority to vote for it.

you forgot obstruction of justice as well

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Does anyone else find the idea that our most representative mainstream Democrat is in love with someone being convicted without due process? I'm not surprised since he's one of the most authoritarian ass wipes on the forum, but i do find it funny. Go get em Fskimo

 

[Jhhnn]

you forgot obstruction of justice as well

Which was just part & parcel of lying. Lewinsky also had to lie to keep the story straight.

 

[Jhhnn]

Does anyone else find the idea that our most representative mainstream Democrat is in love with someone being convicted without due process? I'm not surprised since he's one of the most authoritarian ass wipes on the forum, but i do find it funny. Go get em Fskimo

Fski isn't that. Don't pretend. He's right that Congress determines the process & wrong about what that means.

 

[Paratus]

Does anyone else find the idea that our most representative mainstream Democrat is in love with someone being convicted without due process? I'm not surprised since he's one of the most authoritarian ass wipes on the forum, but i do find it funny. Go get em Fskimo

Dumb ass.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Fski isn't that. Don't pretend. He's right that Congress determines the process & wrong about what that means.

Agreed and he also loves it, he was almost orgasmic in his earlier post.

 

[interchange]

I see we've moved to the denigrate the opponent strategy. Kudos. Worked for a minute. Never mind the fact you are employing it because you don't have any fucking points to make in the argument.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Fski isn't that. Don't pretend. He's right that Congress determines the process & wrong about what that means.

The Constitution holds that there is a difference between impeaching a sitting President and anyone else. When impeaching the President the trial is overseen by the Chief Justice. When impeaching anyone else the Senate can decide what the trial looks like, and it has in the past been done completely in subcommittee as what amounts to a kangaroo court.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Constitution holds that there is a difference between impeaching a sitting President and anyone else. When impeaching the President the trial is overseen by the Chief Justice. When impeaching anyone else the Senate can decide what the trial looks like, and it has in the past been done completely in subcommittee as what amounts to a kangaroo court.

Please elaborate on the kangaroo court remark.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Please elaborate on the kangaroo court remark.

Just that a subcommittee can start with the assumption of guilt, with the trial being more or less just a formality towards pronouncing that verdict. The Senate has no requirement for the sort of due process that we are used to for criminal courts, as an impeachment is not a criminal case.

 

[fskimospy]

Just that a subcommittee can start with the assumption of guilt, with the trial being more or less just a formality towards pronouncing that verdict. The Senate has no requirement for the sort of due process that we are used to for criminal courts, as an impeachment is not a criminal case.

The Senate could also simply hold a vote without conducting a trial in any meaningful sense.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Reminder everybody: This turned out to be more fake news with a pro-liberal agenda from a major mainstream media outlet.