Posted on 09/17/2018 5:47:12 PM PDT by tcrlaf
I'm a Republican and support Trump's judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man.
When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, I was thrilled. The judge has a resume that makes him unquestionably qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.
Further, I have found the attacks on him made by Democrats until now to be unfounded or pure spectacle made by politicians engaging in theatrics simply because they knew there were cameras on.
The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh’s nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
He’s a New York Rangers fan. That means he’s about two steps above a paramecium and one step above a Philadelphia Flyers fan in the food chain.
The left is determining the location of the battlefield. Conservatives are the only ones who care if their candidates behaved like this. The charges are not rape, or assault. It’s dumb to let the left always pick how the battle will be defined.
Siegfried sounds like a Flake, are they related?
After reading that May 2016 article from Evan Siegfried, no one should believe a word this guy says again. He got everything completely wrong.
So they can do the same thing to every conservative judge until he appoints a liberal...?
F*** THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Republican my ass. But he did say "Republican" and not "conservative", so I guess that defines him well enough.
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it?
“The judge has a resume that makes him unquestionably qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.”
.. then shut the hell up and sit yer azz down...
These “but conservatives” really tick me off.
No, Evan. You are not a Republican.
The only part of the whole article that is correct...:^)
If Brett Kavanaugh is not confirmed to the SCOTUS because of this, then we are living in a banana republic and the Constitution is a dead letter.
Well then Evan, I'll make sure to believe every woman who claims you've groped, brutally raped, and sexually harassed them.
See
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/evan-siegfried-hillary-article-1.2625104
... in which the so called Republican Trump supporter calls on everyone to vote for Hillary in 2016.
“I’m a Republican and support Trump’s judicial strategy but the perceived legitimacy of the court is more important than one man.” Always a false premise to start. “I am a Republican.” That was quick, and you’re a liar.
Any Republican that won't approve Kavanaugh is useless. The judiciary is the one issue there can be no caving on.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha. Best laugh I’ve had all day!
Classic case of a “concern troll”
Blasey the Bumper-Hitch B*tch POWER-WASHED her social media accounts.
And her relatives have all got theirs locked down...
“If Jesus Christ were alive and part of the public debate the Democrats would be smearing him too.”
Jesus was falsely accused at His illegal trial. But the Law required facts to be established by 2-3 witnesses. That’s the Biblical standard.
It should be fairly easy to cross examine multiple witnesses of an event to establish the facts.
In this particular case 2 of the 3 “witnesses” agree that the event did not happen. Only 1 witness alleges this event happened.
Accusations that are not made as soon after the offense has been committed lose their credibility over time. There must be a credible reason why an adult is unable to come forward to report a crime as soon as is practically possible. Otherwise, it deserves no audience except maybe in the privacy of counseling.
The only exception would be if there is physical evidence which proves the alleged crime took place (not just supporting evidence like a yearbook proving 2 people attended the same school).
False allegations of sexual assault are themselves a crime. When such allegations are made with no physical evidence of the crime itself, with no corroborating testimony, decades after they were alleged to have occurred, it makes it impossible to prove or disprove. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and a person is, in the eyes of the law, innocent until proven guilty within a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of peers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.