hang a left
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-09-05 01:48 PM
Original message |
Until it is proven that ** is not guilty of crimes against this nation.... |
|
He should not be allowed to advance any agenda, especially nominating Supreme Court justices.
What do you think?
|
BlueJazz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-09-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Well..I was thinking along the Term... |
|
"Not an embarrassment to the Human Race"...But I'll go along with you..
|
Skelington
(436 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-09-05 02:01 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I think I like your thinking...but, |
|
I have to go with "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty untill proven innocent". Even if it is **.
|
Burning Water
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-09-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
to nominate them, then?
** isn't even legally accused of any crimes. Not that I disagree with the sentiment you expressed, I don't. But I don't see how this position has any legal weight to it.
Remember, in our system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And, as I say, there are no pending legal charges against Bush. And even if there were, until he was removed from office (i.e., impeached), he legally has all the powers of the Presidency.
So, who gets to nominate the SC justices??
|
driver8
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-09-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message |
4. The only places I can think of that use "guilty until proven innocent" |
|
are Guantanamo and The US Military. When I was in the Navy, we all had a saying that if you are accused of a crime in the Navy, you were "guilty until proven innocent."
As much as I like your idea, I don't think it will fly.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:15 AM
Response to Original message |