(10-03-2019 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 02:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

This was a job interview not a criminal proceeding.

That is the common and popular retort for people who wish to selectively apply the principles of rule of law at their whim, and with no other regard than the extremely shallow one.

I agree with Fountains of WG, the criminal law burden of proof has no place in the discussion of whether someone should receive a lifetime appointment to the judicial branch. There have been a lot of criminal trials where someone was not convicted by the jury but where any person with an iota of common sense would not necessarily believe the individual was innocent, just because the burden of proof was not carried to prove guilt.

Tanqtonic, I don't really understand your response. I believe what I wrote regardless of the person being nominated for a position. Not sure how that makes my position "selectively applied" or applied "at my whim." Everyone nominated for Senate confirmation should be held to a high bar. Plenty of nominees have been withdrawn over the years and replaced by nominees who didn't have as many concerns raised in either background checks or confirmation hearings. I mean, Kavanaugh didn't exactly sail through on his D.C. Cir. nomination and was accused after that confirmation hearing of misleading the Senate. Plenty of other conservative jurists could have sailed through the nomination process and didn't have as many issues as Kavanaugh, even if you completely ignore the allegations of sexual misconduct. There were even some reports right after Trump nominated Kavanaugh suggesting that Mcconnell preferred some of the other options because they would be easier to confirm.