Amendment 6 - "...the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him..."

The US Constitution ^ | 17 Sep 1787 | Constitutional Convention

[xzins]

Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[xzins]

I disagree. They are already arguing that the “accused” has the right to hear his “accuser” before he has to testify. They are correct.

Sure sounds like they are following the rules of criminal proceedings to me.

[FreeReign]

It’s not a criminal proceeding. It involves alleged criminal ACTS, but the matter is not being heard in a criminal PROCEEDING. Thus, the 6th is not directly on point.

It's a federal government proceeding where a person could be denied a fair hearing to serve on the Supreme Court.

I would think that 6th Amendment principles should apply.

[Political Junkie Too]

But what does the Constitution say about rights in political proceedings like this?

Article I Section 5 Clause 2 says that each chamber makes its own rules of its proceedings.

-PJ

[semimojo]

Sure sounds like they are following the rules of criminal proceedings to me.

This is solely in control of the Senate and under whatever rules they choose to impose.

Do you think Ford has a right of appeal if she disagrees with one of Grassley's decisions?

They may try to mirror some of the conventions of criminal proceedings if they think it helps politically but that's all show.

[xzins]

But the legal jeopardy under oath is real. That is why Kavenaugh will be afforded the right of hearing his accuser before he has to respond.

[Know et al]

You are correct but how can you answer accusations unless you hear them.

At a minimum you should be able to address them after they are made known.

Would you want to defend yourself without first hearing the accusation(s)?

Just axing.

[semimojo]

But the legal jeopardy under oath is real. That is why Kavenaugh will be afforded the right of hearing his accuser before he has to respond.

No, it will be because Grassley thinks it's the fair thing to do, not because he's constrained in any way by the rules of criminal procedure.

If Grassley denied Kavenaugh this right who would he appeal to?

[xzins]

It is the right thing to do because it is a right for a person to have the accuser confront them.

Rights have nothing to do with government.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

Ammendment 6 is also why the fake news on FR and elsewhere about Huber-in-Utah prosecuting people for crimes comitted in DC is 100% certified organic bullshiite.

[ought-six]

One would hope so, but a good lawyer could make a strong case against it.

[KeyLargo]

‪Tucker Carlson just explained the Senate rules on the Kavanaugh vote date. ‬ ‪If they delay the vote and not vote Until after Thursday, it is over totally. Kavanaugh will not be seated at all.‬ ‪No one in media talking about this. Dems will not have to worry about 2nd Trump pick.‬

[mjustice]

Not really, but they way our legal system is supposed to work, I wouldn’t need to trust them at all. Unless they can cite a federal statute, it can’t be heard in a federal court. Even by today’s (lower) standards they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Even if he was dead-to-rights guilty, *that* court couldn’t hear the case.

[xzins]

I heard it the way you heard it, but he hasn’t repeated it again.

Either he was wrong or he misspoke or he spoke poorly. But the odds that both of us heard the same thing wrongly aren’t very high.