This is pathetic

[togor]

Put that question to the many men arrested and/or convicted on a phony rape charge, where the "women don't lie" theory was the only "proof" of the alleged crime.

I previously listed several individual cases of such charges eventually proven untrue, but not before several men had already been imprisoned. There are all sorts of statistics of sex-crime victims, but none for men falsely accused, because they don't count--merely collateral damage in the left's war against men. Therefor to find their stories, it's necessary to search "man wrongly convicted, man falsely accused, rape charge dismissed," etc., & even then more such cases are surely missed than found.

CH is this a bit of selective outrage at the left or are you generally concerned about the fate of those who are unjustly convicted by a flawed justice system of crimes of which they are innocent?

[clintonhater]

CH is this a bit of selective outrage at the left or are you generally concerned about the fate of those who are unjustly convicted by a flawed justice system of crimes of which they are innocent?

Absolutely--who wants to innocent victims jailed? But phony sex crime charges are a special case, because for no other charge is the requirement for evidence so low, for no other charge is the accused guilty until proven innocent, which, as in Kavanaugh's case, is usually physically impossible.

But the meaning of "innocent victims" should not be perverted to include career criminals, arrested & charged many times, but usually released because prosecutors must conserve their time for more serious crimes. If you've got a rap sheet of charges for petty crimes a mile long, it's ridiculous to consider you a truly "innocent victim," though you've never been convicted of any of them.

[mkrad]

From "The Gillibrand Standard" by Micheal Anton, amgreatness.com :

Machiavelli distinguishes between “accusation” and “calumny” in order to
demonstrate that “as much as accusations are useful to republics, so
much are calumnies pernicious.” The difference is that accusations are
public, subject to critique and refutation, and a mendacious or even
inaccurate accuser pays a price. Calumnies, by contrast, “have need
neither of witnesses nor any other specific corroboration to prove them,
so that everyone can be calumniated by everyone; but everyone cannot be
accused, since accusations have need of true corroboration and of
circumstances that show the truth of the accusation.”

There hopefully will be libel investigations and, if appropriate, jail terms for offenders.

[Sandpebble]

We may have a reason for the 'ol rush on Brett. Wonder how deep that dark money goes? People are scared and acting unhinged.


Orrin Hatch, the Supreme Court, and Trump's Pardons - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-court/571285/

Interesting article Road King ..... unfortunately the few here that would read it... would comprehend it... thank you .

[Roadkingtrax]

Interesting article Road King ..... unfortunately the few here that would read it... would comprehend it... thank you .

Timing is everything, and it seems both parties are deep into a chess game.

[clintonhater]

The difference is that accusations are
public, subject to critique and refutation, and a mendacious or even
inaccurate accuser pays a price.

Not any more, when the accuser is a woman & the accused is a man. The woman is called "courageous," regardless of the outcome of any investigation. The libel & slander laws in this country are notoriously weak, but where sex crime accusations are concerned, absolutely nonexistent. Out of the dozens of slanderous accusations against big-wigs like Bill O'Reilly, Matt Lauer, Les Moonvies, too many others to list, which caused them to be fired from multi-million $ jobs, which one of these accusers have been sued for slander? Despite there being not one iota of evidence for the accusation?

[mkrad]

Agree with all of that, maybe perjury will bite harder?

[TSimonetti]

I'll catch flak for saying this but it's true. Kavanaugh comes from the 1% and rules from the bench in a way to benefit the 1%. His whole life has been about advancement through maximizing the advantages that come with his access to exclusive clubs, which he has apparently concluded amount to some kind of birthright.

To the question of whether or not that is what the US Constitution was all about, there is good reason to believe that it wasn't. The founders were not keen on bringing about mob rule, although there were some fairly radical (for the time) idealists among them. The idea that they wrote the Constitution with the intent of substituting rule by new hereditary class (oligarchs) for the old (monarchs) is at the very least a matter of debate, despite what the "don't feed the trolls" crowd will say.

If one is of a mind to put harsh term limits on Congress, or hire Presidents that come from outside the political system, both as a means of bringing elements of a meritocracy back to the political system, then there is logic to the idea that people like Kavanaugh are not a good choice for the bench.

Nonsense. 30 years ago, a super conservative, Antonin Scalia, who would have voted against Roe V Wade or a so-called assault weapons ban was confirmed 98-0. What has changed?. This is not about social status. It's about the ever widening divide between the unhinged Left and normal America.

The vast majority of our Framers were from the 1 percent and they belonged to an exclusive wealthy club. FDR was, and so are the Kennedy's from the 1 percent. The only prerequisite for a judge is knowing the law and the Constitution, and interpreting laws correctly as written by congress. In this area, Kavanaugh excels. He knows what the term "In commmon use" means w/respect to semi-automatic rifles, while Feinstein on the other hand(and another 1 percenter by the way), is deliberately ignoring the real meaning of the term in order to advance her political agenda.

Kavanaugh has a 12 year stellar track record on the courts. His many decisions are not without controversy, but they are based on sound logic and Constitutional principles. That used to be all we looked for in a SCOTUS nominee.

[mkrad]

The left is not interested in an Originalist like Kavanaugh. They have been attempting to legislate from the bench, with varying degrees of success, since the early '60s, to advance a progressive agenda. This is basically "The Cause", and supported by "The Narrative", the thread floated daily by the mainstream media. The recent machinations of the Democrats are at the level of Ratf*ck of Donald Segretti, et al. back in the Nixon days, and I hope will result in similar jail terms.

[Vern Humphrey]

Chuck Schumer himself has said we put too much emphasis on the Constitution -- his style of government brooks no restraint on power.

[TSimonetti]

Chuck Schumer himself has said we put too much emphasis on the Constitution -- his style of government brooks no restraint on power.

The notion that the Constitution is little more than an outdated roadblock to an enlightened progressive agenda that should be paid lip service only when politically necessary is not new. It dates back to Woodrow Wilson, arguably the worst President of the 20th Century, if not our history.

[Vern Humphrey]

The notion that the Constitution is little more than an outdated roadblock to an enlightened progressive agenda that should be paid lip service only when politically necessary is not new. It dates back to Woodrow Wilson, arguably the worst President of the 20th Century, if not our history.

Well, I could name a couple of later presidents who would be in the running for that title.

Wilson led us into a war for which we were unprepared -- because it was to his political advantage that we not prepare. Then he failed to extract a promise from our allies to grant a reasonable peace. And he viciously prosecuted his political opponents.

How many people know that Oliver Wendel Holmes's famous dictat, "There is no right to shout fire in a crowded theater" was issued to justify sending people to prison for merely handing out leaflets at an Army induction center?