You Don't Have To Pass Out To Be Blackout Drunk

Blackout drunken episodes and criminal sexual behavior appear to be credentials that the GOP is seeking. Perhaps if the GOP has dirt on its nominees they will be obeisant to the GOP.

 

As opposed to a statist court?

 

It's disingenuous to clonflate a position on the Supreme Court as a mere job, and a senate judiciary hearing as a mere interview.

When's the last time someone testified against you under the penalty of perjury at a 'job interview'? When's the last time a political party demanded that the FBI investigate you in an effort to prevent you from 'being hired'?Never, that's when.

Nice try though guys. I understand the desperation, and I'm sure some conservatives would try using the false equivalence argument of 'job and job interview' if the shoe were on the other foot. The progressives who'd no doubt argue 'presumption of innocence' would be correct in doing so.

 

Non sequitur flame bait? Mirror?

 

Where did I say that in my post? Point to it. No I don't think all 16 years old girls are pedophiles. It has, in fact, nothing to do with what I wrote. Let's try again :

"Would you hire a babysitter you only suspect of being a pedophile?"

After 3 times, you haven't even been able to answer a simple question… What does that say about you?

 

As compared to a sober, pervert-free court.

 

Well, of course. It does allow future leverage by the GOP and the puppet tRUmp WH over their own SCOTUS puppet. How did Kauanaugh's debts/past alleged criminal activity disappear again?

 

Trumpery!

 

Right back atcha pal ... Your reply should have read phony allegations no longer disqualify ... You do know that Ford's polygraph pal, the former FBI agent, was caught tampering with the witnesses right? The FBI revealed that in their report. Grassley's demanding DiFi turn over her communications with Ford's "team" of conspirators. Sooon Thor ... very sooon.

 

The only point I was making is that "presumption of innocence" is a principle that clearly doesn't apply everywhere like some people are trying to make us believe. It's something about court of laws, which the Kavanaugh hiring isn't.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. If an employer suspected me of a crime, he would simply not hire me without needing an investigation from the FBI or someone testifying. The situation would be even worst when it comes to "presumption of innocence". You are arguing for me right now and you are not realizing it.

 

Trying to cover your posting MO by staining moi? A-Typical of your posting style. Stick to facts, where is Brett's poly?

 

Might be stapled to the one Ford never submitted.

 

Dodge noted and expected.

 

The reason it doesn't make sense to you, is because you're determined to view a position on the Supreme Court as if it's the same as a cashier position at Walmart. You want to equate a senate judiciary commity hearing to a mere interview. You're taking those two views not because they make sense, but because they seem to allow for an opportunity to deny a principal. That's desperate and disingenuous. You can see it that way if you want, but don't bother trying to convince me, I know it's the wrong view. In fact, that's why the commity didn't just throw it's collective hands up in the air, saying "well shoot guys, a bunch of people are saying gross things about the nominee, guess we have to 86 him". But again, view it how you want, don't bother trying to convince me.

 

MSM didn't insist Kavanaugh take a poly before they'd risk the financial liabilities for publishing his op-eds. You do know it was the tabloid who insisted Ford take the poly right? It's like they KNEW she was lying ...

 

No I don't think that a position on the Supreme Court is the same as a cashier position. You are inventing that I do. Once again, what I argued is that you can't just claim "presumption of innocence"! for everything, as if this principle is really used all the time in every situation like it has been claimed in this thread

We seem to agree on that, right?

Now you can tell me how you think a position on the Supreme Court differs from most other jobs and where you draw the line when it comes to hiring people you presume might have done something illegal (when other people are as qualified). Cashier? Doctor? Lawyer? Judge? What job is it okay to ignore the presumption of innocence and which is it not?

You could even argue that the bigger the job, the more careful you should be. We're talking about the Supreme Court here. You should get the best of the best.

You think it's okay to not hire a cashier because he might have done something illegal. But it's not okay to not hire a judge because he might have done something illegal? It could seem like a double standard.

 

it's hard to take Democrats seriously.

I'm still waiting for democrats to demand to know who Congress has paid off sexual assaults for. I made a thread about it. It was news about a year ago and then disappeared. I think it's safe to say if a bunch of republicans were involved it would be known.

 

A robot with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and a nagging ex-wife.

 

I guess that's easier than admitting the logic of your post was just shredded.

 

A position on the SC isn't a mere job. A senate judiciary committee hearing is not simply an interview. You cannot presume guilt when allegations fall flat. Sorry. You're chasing your own tail here.

 

Who else baby sits besides 16 year old girls? What a ridiculous claim to make that they would be pedophiles.

 

So what?

 

I'd rather not have a court that rules employers are allowed to do basically whatever they want and employees have no recourse but to bend over and spread cheeks.