Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

[EricHiggin]

SpokenTruth said:

EricHiggin said:

Wonder how long before someone makes a claim in this thread that some of us, if not all of us, verbally assaulted them at some point in time in the past and they feel their was life was threatened. They don't remember when, or where exactly, but they know for sure it was us. They can't comment again either, because they are afraid of commenting, which is unfortunate, but we understand, don't we?

When we are all asked to prove our innocence beyond doubt with only that minimal information at hand, or face being banned, I wonder how many would still think the burden is on Kav to prove his innocence or face being rejected?

Did you just equate verbal abuse with sexual assault? 

Also, I tried elk meat once.  I don't remember exactly where or when but I know I've tried it.  Or because I can't remember when or where does that mean I must have never had elk?

I used forms of assault leading to the feeling of one's life being threatened. It wouldn't have made as much sense if I said sexual assault, since an online forum in itself does not allow for direct physical contact.

So if Kav instead said, 'I never sexually assaulted Ford, and while I don't remember when that may have been, or where it may have happened, I know I definitely didn't do it', that would mean he must have never sexually assaulted her? If it does, he's as innocent as she is. If it doesn't, he's as questionable as she is without evidence.

That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion of what may have occurred based on the claims and defense made, but without hard factual evidence, you can't be 100% sure.

If you wanted something, like say to cross the boarder, and they had the ability to comb through your life, and they said to you 'I see you've watched YouTube videos of people blowing stuff up, and so I've calculated there's a 0.1% chance you might physically try to do so in this Country, so your not aloud in. Turn around'. You would think this is acceptable? If you do, you should also have no problem whatsoever with Trump and his admins immigration/border policies and bans btw.

You can't honestly say if you believe Kav isn't 100% innocent, that he shouldn't be confirmed, because if you believe that, then you can't nominate anybody based on that logic. All someone has to say is, are any of the candidates available beyond a doubt 100% the best choice? If the answer is no, which you can bet it is, then you can't even nominate somebody.

This is why the rule of law exists as it does. Without it, America would still be the wild west at best.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 02 October 2018