Legality and Morality in the Kavanaugh proceedings

50 - 48 confirmed.... As of now, President Trump is immune to any laws, and injustice has been allowed to thrive and be called 'a moment in history'.

I can't even anymore...

Justice has been served and morality of our nation upheld in this. The only thing outrageous here is others cries to burn him at the stake for a crime he has not been proven to commit. Shades of the witch trials and lynch mobs abound but fortunately the assertions have fallen on deaf ears and our system functioned as it should have. Morality has been served.

If he dident actually commit the crime it's self and it's a politically charged rouse to knock him off his seat. I would suggest the process of defferal to another professional opinion is correct motion to proceed. If it cannot be proven by the accuser that significant intention transfered Tobin actual behaviour of the actual act of sexual misconduct via assault took place then their is no evidence to conclude the claim is real. So we differ from the original claim and see that it's not really true. Leaving SJusticeKV1 free to administer his position. Or title of definition in terms of appointed occupation. My understanding of morality is Rayburn is a flexible and relative to context, cause, effect and outcome which takes intention, mood, mindset and emotions into account. Analysis of all factors provides a good time to reflect on someone's background, historical land marks and impactful highlights in their psychic emotional and mental capacities. Doing so allows for comprehensive understanding of what may have caused the point of immortality or when we did something wrong. Why is the most important question when it comes to understanding smothers intention behind the display of expression. Wether it was right or wrong we have to transcend judgement until we understand if the host of the activity alleged as criminal immoral or unethical was conscious at the time. If it was or can be consciously acknowledged then we have sentience. If we want to apply morality the equation of right or wrong we have to examine the root cause of the problem not just the expression or behaviour. If their was good reason for the aggressor to be upset or disturbed enough to be angry openly with a mental health professional over the phone. Without deceit deception or manipulation of the truth. And a transparent dislodge that is thoroughly honest with you is clear. Then we must question the cause of the disturbance IE what has happened environmentally to the accused. What are the intentions of the victim and why has the event taken place. And why has it occurred in a repetitive manner. With no real reason for occurring other than a random act of verbal communication. Offer don't initiate the priesthood multifaceted evaluative root cause analysis then we may fail to understand the dimensions of the case. Is the accused possibly a victim somehow. Is the accuser actually triggered or intentionally aggravated the accused. Has their been done kind of greater violation causing a polarized and unintentional dynamic between the accused and the alleged victim. If good cause and reasonable doubt remains that the accused was actibgvout of intentional motivation and intention to hurt the victim and reasonable motivation to be angry established then the instrument of justice our capacity to conceive the difference between fight and wrong has been challenged. And we can start to peice together the puzzle of what has occurred. Given the chance. Motivational analysis of intentions behind with understanding environmental stressors, mental health issues and capacity to acknowledge weather or not we did something wrong. Despite that acknowledgement we must push ourselves to understand the entire truth ofvehy it happened. If it was a matter of being deeply concerned about another human being then reasonable pressure or emotional distress might be the cause of the accusors neglect or violation of moral justice regardless we have to continue to pursue the reason behind the act. Was the accused mind at the time clearcand level headed or was it pontentially delusional suffering from severe schizophrenia or paranoia was it unmedicated for a serious condition and was the victim free of fault. Even if the victim was right and the victim had committed a crime. The correct moral judgement would be to complete a defferal of information to best ascertain if justice was appropriatly applied before administering judgement. If good enough reason remains for the incident to occur then we must further apply the rule of empathy. Seeing to actively participate in comprehensive definition of cause. If the accuser is in the wrong and did not provide a legal service bound by a moral duty to abide by the law the moral justice has been broken then the original accused can be forgiven and returned to an original intended message. Care and concern. If the accuser has not been able to provide his duty to moral code then he is at faulbibstead if the accused and is suffering from a lack of moral integrity or justice and is more focused on blaming the accused instead of helping him is not only unprofessional but also a failure of his duty to protect vulnerable people everywhere from violation attack and interception impossible to apprehend. In this case the accusor has committed the crime. Causing the accused to act in a manner of understandible distress. Which must first be addressed before justice can be fully served despite this kg the accused possibly was Mr tally unstable or significantly unwell at the time or psychotic at the time then he can not be held accountable for his actions.

The entire USSC is way too powerful. More powerful than originally planned. And even more than what's proper..

Injustice has reigned in our political system for almost a century. You had moments of justice, but only when politically beneficial. From giving human rights to corporations. To saying who you have or don't have the choice to associate with..

They've used their position to muck up the common understanding of the provisions in the U.S. constitution. Even such clauses as the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses have lost their real power due to gradual undermining. Such political drama, from both sides, should tell us that their is entirely TOO MUCH POWER centralized into the political/economic/military/media/religious strictures in our society.. they keep trying to recreate things according to their personal morality..

Arisaig, that's melodramatic and we both know it.

Kyrin, while correct legal proceedings have occured, it isn't a victory per se so much as business as usual. Slandering opponents is a relatively common practice sadly (rape accusations go beyond this notion, but the point remains).

Anobi, you seem to have some good points, but I honestly have a hard time getting through that massive wall of unformated and grammatically messy text.

Uzima, as often as I have libertarian leanings, it's important to realize that the founding fathers didn't write the Constitution with the hindsight we have. Freedom is important to balance against reasonability. Oddly enough the SC is the sort of conscience meant to balance principles against fact patterns, and imo is the biggest guarantor of freedoms.

I dont believe I used the term "victory" in any of my replies, rex. I said justice was served as it should have been in a fair and legal manner, no matter how much mud slinging the left attempted.

As for the ussc, it has the exact same power it has always had and as the constitution intended. There is no travesty of justice and no abuse of power evident in any of these proceedings.

Rex wrote: Uzima, as often as I have libertarian leanings, it's important to realize that the founding fathers didn't write the Constitution with the hindsight we have. Freedom is important to balance against reasonability. Oddly enough the SC is the sort of conscience meant to balance principles against fact patterns, and imo is the biggest guarantor of freedoms.

I don't think the founders even set up the current constitution as the end all. However, there are certain principles it's based on, and certain provisions, that are important for keeping power from centralizing. I'm also pretty sure they had good hindsight and foresight.

I agree that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. Though I don't think anyone can compel somebody to responsibility beyond what they agree to or what they violate..

It's a thin line but it's important to not cross it. For The Force, I respect the inherent freedom of all conscious beings..

It's about time it stopped

Anobi wrote: It's about time it stopped

It's about time what stopped?

I am a member of other religious groups, well I was. I am now only associated with a single group on Facebook. The opening post talks about morality, in this area I only see 1 side devoid of it. Concessions where made, care was put into appearances and considerations on how to find truth without attacking...this was the republican way. In turn, Dr. Fords own lawyers didn’t rely the offer for private interviews (morality), a senator told all men to shut up and stand aside (morality)...the list can continue. While neither way was perfect, there were attempts to reach out and learn from the past by 1 side and utter hatred at a lost opportunity in the other. I have left other groups, that after 1 day have not removed posts calling for white men, men or gender traders to be killed....morality is actual action, not the talking points we agree with. I support neither party, but if we want to talk Morals, The Democratic Party should be held accountable for their lack of morality and it’s most extreme members for the very public hatred and calls for death based on sex or freedom of thought (gender traders).