I wish there would be more discussion and recognition of the flaws we all have with “memory”. It’s part of being human. Another part of memory is that traumatic events are more likely to be remembered (Where were you when 9/11 happened? Where were you on 9/11/2000?) Both individuals have memories of 30+ years ago. Which has a higher chance of being correct, the traumatic or the “just another party”?
Before anything else this was a job interview. Kavanaugh’s behavior had him looking like an entitled unstable brat. If you want to talk about due process and presumption of innocence then you need to focus on how most convictions come from deals made with the DA and not from a court.
Child sacrifice : Fright wing backing of unrestricted access to weapons used to murder children in schools, etc
Wind Mills: You forgot to mention water mills. And what is a modern hydroelectric plant but a very sophisticated water mill — water turning a vaned wheel (turbine). Modern wind mills have the same relationship to 300 year old wind mills as turbines do to 300 year old water wheels. What an ignorant comment.
Zero Borders: Liar! Show where that is the platform of any major political party.
No Free Speech: Well here we are, totally unable to state an opinion or a fact. Sheesh!
No right to bear arms: As many guns as people in the US says that’s a bogus claim.
No personal property rights: Yep, none for the poor. And banks never, ever foreclose on people when they lose their jobs.
Bigotry against whites: Yeah, lots of people are bigoted against bigots.
Religious bigotry against Christians: Wrong. What Mark Twain called Professional Christians because they profess rather than practice to follow Jesus, are the object of scorn. I don’t see many folks putting down the Amish (unless they are following a buggy in a no-passing zone). Hypocrites and liars who use their religion as a cover deserve scorn.
Sexist bigotry against men: Yep, that’s why women earn more than men! – uh, wait, they don’t.
Guilt until proven innocent, then still guilty: Hillary Clinton with regard to any number of ridiculous fright wing claims, never found to be actionable.
Trial by the media: Fox News
Mob mentality: LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
Propaganda over Democracy: Russian interference in the electoral process using social media. False claims of voter fraud.
Elitism: Yep, rich white folks should rule the country from their corporate board rooms.
Earth Worship: Not to worry dude, there are millions and millions more Money Worshippers!
All “presumption of innocence” means is that we should not decide that someone did something wrong in the absence of evidence proving it. If the simple statement of a single person is enough evidence to convince you he did something wrong, the presumption vanishes. But if you think that “something more” than that is necessary, it will be pretty clear to you that we don’t have “something more” in this situation. The accuser doesn’t remember when it was, or where it was, or just who was there, and those she thinks were there don’t remember the party. Under normal circumstances, Kavenaugh could sue her for defamation of character, And he would win. Unless it turns out that Dr. Ford is Mother Teresa, which I rather doubt.
Nobody is on trial here. And for you capitalists out there: Suppose you were getting ready to hire a guy named Sam. Then one of your golfing buddies tells you that he heard from his wife that “Sam” had a habit of grabbing women’s behinds (assume uninvited and unwelcome). Would you:
A. Hire Sam as soon as possible (you know, “presumed innocence”)
B. Forget about Sam and go to the next candidate
C. Do some more background-checking on Sam, before Sam does some background checking of his own at your firm
Presumption of innocence occurs when an investigation is called for in the first place to either prove or disprove a submitted allegation of wrong doing. The burden of proof being on the accuser, of course. Unfortunately the Repugs ignored that process by trying to bully the democrats and ram the nomination through and making Kavanaugh look even more guilty than he may or may not be. “Stupid is as stupid does” as Forest said.
Aww, doesn’t the GOP love to play the victim. Actually, trying to see if a Supreme Court nominee may have actually sexually assaulted someone should be standard due process, once they have been credibly accused.
Maybe if the republicans hadn’t been so sh*tty about the Merrick Garland appointment, I would have cared a little bit more, but they can all burn in hell and no doubt will.
I like my Supreme Court Justices to be sober as a Judge, able to control their temper and not lie under oath. I know Merrick Garland meets this criteria but he never got a Senate hearing much less a vote
Havel over 5 years ago
I wish there would be more discussion and recognition of the flaws we all have with “memory”. It’s part of being human. Another part of memory is that traumatic events are more likely to be remembered (Where were you when 9/11 happened? Where were you on 9/11/2000?) Both individuals have memories of 30+ years ago. Which has a higher chance of being correct, the traumatic or the “just another party”?
tengu99 over 5 years ago
Before anything else this was a job interview. Kavanaugh’s behavior had him looking like an entitled unstable brat. If you want to talk about due process and presumption of innocence then you need to focus on how most convictions come from deals made with the DA and not from a court.
Vidrinath Premium Member over 5 years ago
Just getting around to noticing that Mike?
The folks in Gitmo would like a word.
And the folks McCarthy smeared/drunkenly accused/chose-at-random.
And the folks in Japanese internment camps.
And the folks who lived under Jim Crow.
And the Native Americans.
And Women during the …..history of the country.
I’m sure there are more that will be brought up. I’ll be impressed when the Redcaps help prove the point that this happened a LONG time ago.
genome_project Premium Member over 5 years ago
What goes around comes around, Mike.
Read Matt Wuerker a couple of days ago,:
https://www.gocomics.com/mattwuerker/2018/09/27
Radish the wordsmith over 5 years ago
Why do Republicans hate our freedoms?
DrDon1 over 5 years ago
Nothing “new” here … Ramirez champions a privileged, elitist male … Just ‘move along….’
RAGs over 5 years ago
Presumption of innocence does not mean that a person can never be proven guilty.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 5 years ago
We have a winner for today’s dumbest comment!
Child sacrifice : Fright wing backing of unrestricted access to weapons used to murder children in schools, etc
Wind Mills: You forgot to mention water mills. And what is a modern hydroelectric plant but a very sophisticated water mill — water turning a vaned wheel (turbine). Modern wind mills have the same relationship to 300 year old wind mills as turbines do to 300 year old water wheels. What an ignorant comment.
Zero Borders: Liar! Show where that is the platform of any major political party.
No Free Speech: Well here we are, totally unable to state an opinion or a fact. Sheesh!
No right to bear arms: As many guns as people in the US says that’s a bogus claim.
No personal property rights: Yep, none for the poor. And banks never, ever foreclose on people when they lose their jobs.
Bigotry against whites: Yeah, lots of people are bigoted against bigots.
Religious bigotry against Christians: Wrong. What Mark Twain called Professional Christians because they profess rather than practice to follow Jesus, are the object of scorn. I don’t see many folks putting down the Amish (unless they are following a buggy in a no-passing zone). Hypocrites and liars who use their religion as a cover deserve scorn.
Sexist bigotry against men: Yep, that’s why women earn more than men! – uh, wait, they don’t.
Guilt until proven innocent, then still guilty: Hillary Clinton with regard to any number of ridiculous fright wing claims, never found to be actionable.
Trial by the media: Fox News
Mob mentality: LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
Propaganda over Democracy: Russian interference in the electoral process using social media. False claims of voter fraud.
Elitism: Yep, rich white folks should rule the country from their corporate board rooms.
Earth Worship: Not to worry dude, there are millions and millions more Money Worshippers!
Dr. Whom over 5 years ago
All “presumption of innocence” means is that we should not decide that someone did something wrong in the absence of evidence proving it. If the simple statement of a single person is enough evidence to convince you he did something wrong, the presumption vanishes. But if you think that “something more” than that is necessary, it will be pretty clear to you that we don’t have “something more” in this situation. The accuser doesn’t remember when it was, or where it was, or just who was there, and those she thinks were there don’t remember the party. Under normal circumstances, Kavenaugh could sue her for defamation of character, And he would win. Unless it turns out that Dr. Ford is Mother Teresa, which I rather doubt.
DrPawl over 5 years ago
Nobody is on trial here. And for you capitalists out there: Suppose you were getting ready to hire a guy named Sam. Then one of your golfing buddies tells you that he heard from his wife that “Sam” had a habit of grabbing women’s behinds (assume uninvited and unwelcome). Would you:
A. Hire Sam as soon as possible (you know, “presumed innocence”)
B. Forget about Sam and go to the next candidate
C. Do some more background-checking on Sam, before Sam does some background checking of his own at your firm
?
NRHAWK Premium Member over 5 years ago
Presumption of innocence occurs when an investigation is called for in the first place to either prove or disprove a submitted allegation of wrong doing. The burden of proof being on the accuser, of course. Unfortunately the Repugs ignored that process by trying to bully the democrats and ram the nomination through and making Kavanaugh look even more guilty than he may or may not be. “Stupid is as stupid does” as Forest said.
DonnyTwoScoops over 5 years ago
Aww, doesn’t the GOP love to play the victim. Actually, trying to see if a Supreme Court nominee may have actually sexually assaulted someone should be standard due process, once they have been credibly accused.
running down a dream over 5 years ago
it will backfire on them. wait for it.
jhayesd31 over 5 years ago
Due Process meet Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland meet the Republican ally Dereliction of Duty
Durak Premium Member over 5 years ago
This is the Senate Judiciary Committee, they make their own rules. Presumption of innocence and due process are not an issue here.
clayusmcret Premium Member over 5 years ago
The headstone in the foreground is either Common Sense or Sense of Decency.
NeedaChuckle Premium Member over 5 years ago
Again, I’m sure Mr. Ramirez believed Hillary was innocent with Benghazi.
randolini Premium Member over 5 years ago
Maybe if the republicans hadn’t been so sh*tty about the Merrick Garland appointment, I would have cared a little bit more, but they can all burn in hell and no doubt will.
olesmithy over 5 years ago
Some things can’t be said better.
Mr. Blawt over 5 years ago
He is presumed innocent, in a court of law, he went to a job interview and acted like a drunken rapist. Where are his 6 victim’s due process?
Dapperdan61 Premium Member over 5 years ago
I like my Supreme Court Justices to be sober as a Judge, able to control their temper and not lie under oath. I know Merrick Garland meets this criteria but he never got a Senate hearing much less a vote