Thomas Knapp: Two Things the Kavanaugh Fiasco Did Damage to “From the Right”

Both are ongoing, but the Kavanaugh confirmation process both highlighted the damage and added to it.

Thing One: “Presumption of Innocence”

Here’s a non-Kavanaugh-related example of the problem, from a piece on civil judgments pursuant to rape allegations. I agree with the author that people acquitted of crimes shouldn’t face a lower standard of proof in subsequent civil actions based on the claim that they’re guilty, but then he goes on to write:

For us to live in an open, liberal society, the presumption of innocence has to exist as a social idea as well as a legal one. We need to recognise that people should not be branded guilty of serious crimes unless judged to be so by their peers, against a high standard of evidence.

No. It is not that way. It’s never been that way. It’s never going to be that way. And it shouldn’t be that way.

“Presumption of innocence” in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard/threshold for formally (through e.g. a criminal court proceeding) penalizing someone for a crime he or she is accused of committing. That’s all it is, and demanding that its application be expanded to social interactions in general isn’t just silly, it’s dangerous.

If you think you saw me put something in your drink, you don’t have to give me the benefit of doubt and consume the drink in the absence of video footage confirming that I did, witnesses credibly testifying that I did, and a jury of my peers unanimously concluding that I did.

Thing Two: “Due Process”

Brett Kavanaugh was being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, not being tried for sexual assault. Vis a vis the sexual assault allegations, some people managed to convince themselves that in order for him to not get the job, “due process” required that he be “convicted” of those allegations by a reasonable doubt standard after a thorough criminal trial style proceeding.

“Due process” for a SCOTUS position is as follows: Presidential appointment and the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” That’s it. That’s all. There’s nothing else.

On the “advice” end, presumably the Senate might send the president a list of people they think would be good for the position. On the “consent” end, there’s absolutely, positively no standard whatsoever concerning how Senators may or may not vote. A Senator can vote yes because he likes the the nominee’s hair color. A Senator can vote no because she doesn’t like the nominee’s shoes. Or, more to the likely end, a Senator can vote yes or no based on the nominee’s perceived political affiliations.

Once Trump nominated Kavanaugh, the only thing Kavanaugh was entitled to was for the Senate to vote yes or no on his nomination after considering his fitness in whatever manner they chose, and to whatever standard they damn well felt like applying. And even that is far more than any other applicant for any other job is entitled to.

Originally posted at Knappster.blogspot.com

57 thoughts on “Thomas Knapp: Two Things the Kavanaugh Fiasco Did Damage to “From the Right”

  1. William T. Forrest

    Agreed on most of the above except for this part:

    “…people acquitted of crimes shouldn’t face a lower standard of proof in subsequent civil actions based on the claim that they’re guilty, ”

    The long standing legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, preponderance of the evidence in civil cases. And I think that makes sense. Locking someone up in a cage, usually at state expense, should require a higher standard of proof than a fine which gives some measure of relief to those who have shown to the satisfaction of the court that they are victims and that person they are suing did them wrong.

    I do fully agree that employers (and outside observers) are fully justified in using an even tougher “reasonable suspicion” standard in weeding out job applicants, especially for a high placed position. Clearly the Senators either did not do that here or disagreed with me profoundly on whether such a standard had been met.

    Honestly, with very few exceptions, it was pure partisanship, and that’s not good. And even Manchin’s vote, while not partisan was likely shaped by partisan considerations – he’s a Democrat facing a tough re-election in a state where Trump scored his most lopsided margin of any state. He was stuck between his party and his voters, and chose the latter since Collins and Flake were already voting yes. He may well have chosen his party if his had been the deciding vote that would have allowed Pence to cast the tiebreaker.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The long standing legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, preponderance of the evidence in civil cases. And I think that makes sense.”

    So do I.

    So if you want to sue someone for damages on a preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, fine — UNLESS they’ve already been acquitted on the higher standard of proof. If both actions are brought prior to either trial, let the defendant decide which one gets adjudicated first. If the criminal trial happens first and the defendant is convicted, then in the civil case the guilty verdict should be automatic and it should move directly to assessing the damages owed.

  3. George Phillies

    He wasn’t charged with a crime. He wasn’t being sued. He was being judged for acceptability on the highest court. If we prove that there is reason to supose that a nominee is a Revolutionary Socialist or an American Nazi, these both being totally legal acts, we may well reject the turkey at almost any evidence level.

    Kavanaugh’s serious rpoblem was with the 4th Amendment.

  4. Steven Wilson

    The Supreme Court has been a cancer since the Justice Marshall court and Judicial Review. The only thing Trump has done is make SNL funny and relevant again.

    9 traitors to the premise of Individual sovereignty. Puke.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    Finally got around to reading the August issue of LP News. Nice job on the on the article on the immigration plank, TK.

    Good explanation of the history of the plank and the practicalities of how and why the plank gets changed.

  6. Tony From Long Island

    Justice Marshall? Really? Marbury v. Madison? *sigh*

    George, the 4th Amendment might be 25th on the list of Kavanaugh’s problems

  7. William T. Forrest

    “So if you want to sue someone for damages on a preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, fine — UNLESS they’ve already been acquitted on the higher standard of proof. ”

    A defendant may be apprehended at the scene or shortly thereafter, and it’s not reasonable to expect prosecutors to hold off on prosecution until a civil trial takes place, nor is it reasonable to require taxpayers to house a possibly innocent person until a civil trial takes place (or on the other hand for a potentially dangerous criminal to run around free because they have chosen a civil trial over a criminal one). It may take some time for witnesses/families to get attorneys, gather facts and evidence, etc – after all, unlike professional prosecutors, this isn’t their full time job and in most cases they have never done it before.

    Thus, I think it makes sense to allow criminal trials to take place first, and therefore – since someone who may not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to still be guilty on a preponderance of the evidence – to allow civil trials even when someone is found innocent in a criminal trial.

    “He wasn’t charged with a crime. He wasn’t being sued. He was being judged for acceptability on the highest court. If we prove that there is reason to supose that a nominee is a Revolutionary Socialist or an American Nazi, these both being totally legal acts, we may well reject the turkey at almost any evidence level.”

    Exactly. Kavanaugh should have been rejected before the sexual assault allegations ever surfaced, on the merits. I think there’s been broad agreement about that here. Separately, I happen to think he should have been rejected if the sexual assault allegations were true, even though it was a really long time ago when he was a high school and college student. I do think that goes to character, and that character matters in a high place appointment like Supreme Court. I hope there’s agreement about that here as well, but I’m not sure there is.

    I also happen to believe that those allegations are in fact true, and that’s where Knapp’s point becomes relevant: what evidence standard do we use when judging a supreme court nominee accused of such crimes, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, or reasonable suspicion? I think it makes sense for potential employers, and in this case the potential employer to be in at least some sense all of us, to use a reasonable suspicion standard.

    There are many possible candidates and it’s not likely that they would all be accused (especially since there are severe consequences for accusers regardless of whether that nominee ends up being appointed). If it somehow became commonplace for all or most nominees to be accused of sexual assault or harassment, the public’s skepticism level in each particular case would understandably rise. Therefore, since denying someone a high position is not depriving them of life, liberty or even property, the lower standard makes sense here. I don’t think there’s broad agreement here about this, which I think is unfortunate.

    Which level of proof was met by Kavanaugh’s accusers? I believe they met a reasonable suspicion standard, and Kavanaugh should have been rejected for that reason regardless of the fact that he should also have been rejected for reasons completely unrelated to the accusations. The reason this is relevant is that because it may be more important to consider how future nominees should be judged if they face similar accusations but not similar problems with their judicial record. Of course that won’t be up to us, but it will matter in how we judge how well the Senators exercise their advise and consent role.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think there is broad agreement here that the accusers met even a reasonable suspicion standard, much less that such a standard should be the one used, or that the nominee’s character as a young person is even material.

    I also believe based on what I have learned of the evidence that a preponderance of evidence standard is also likely to be met in this case, although I don’t expect that case to be brought now, nor do I think it’s reasonable to expect accusers to bring a civil action since that can be extremely expensive, time consuming and emotionally difficult (and a threat to their safety when we have the anonymous MAGA/4chan/women hating masculinist troll army out there). And, I don’t think it should be a requirement to bring a civil case because *even if* a nominee isn’t guilty on a preponderance of the evidence standard they can still be guilty on a reasonable suspicion standard, and should therefore also be rejected.

    Where I do agree with those here who have quasi-defended Kavanaugh is that he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But I think it would be ridiculous to apply such a standard to a Supreme Court nomination (another thing I’m not sure there is broad agreement here about, unfortunately) and in any case the bottom line is, yes, Kavanaugh should have been rejected anyway.

    Since he wasn’t, I’m wondering whether there even is such a thing as an impeachment for a Supreme Court justice. Has that ever happened? If so, did ever lead to removal? Does the legal mechanism even exist? Please forgive my ignorance on this matter. I know I can research it, but perhaps someone here will save me the trouble.

  8. William T. Forrest

    Sorry for the length of that last comment. I got carried away; it should have been broken up into at least two comments. I hope someone still reads it. I typically would not read one that long myself.

  9. William T. Forrest

    “George, the 4th Amendment might be 25th on the list of Kavanaugh’s problems”

    I think Phillies is correct about that one. What do you think his 24 or so bigger problems are, Tony?

  10. Tony From Long Island

    I am a BIG proponent of the 4th Amendment. I ended up doing a lot more time than I should have because of a search that violated the 4th amendment. So, I agree that his jurisprudence on that issue is a serious problem.

    However, in my opinion, his demeanor, temperament, blatant and overt partisanship and lying (or at best being very deceptive) while testifying to congress are automatic disqualifiers.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thanks, Anthony!

    “it’s not reasonable to expect prosecutors to hold off on prosecution until a civil trial takes place”

    If speedy trial requirements are taken seriously, that shouldn’t be a problem.

    “nor is it reasonable to require taxpayers to house a possibly innocent person until a civil trial takes place”

    1) That’s what bail is for.

    2) These days, the prisoners are expected to pay for their own confinement.

    Personally, I suggest doing away with cash bail altogether. If someone’s not a flight risk, release on recognizance. If someone is a flight risk use the monitoring anklet. Problem solved (“possibly dangerous” is irrelevant to pre-trial confinement — presumption of innocence, remember?).

    As far as standards for Kavanaugh are concerned, the only applicable standard was “do 51 Senators choose, for whatever reasons they deem acceptable, to vote for him, or not?” This is neither criminal nor civil litigation, it’s politics.

    Personally I don’t think the guy should have been let within 50 miles of a SCOTUS seat for all kinds of reasons (4th Amendment, executive power to execute without charge or trial, etc.). But I’m not a Senator, so what I think doesn’t matter.

  12. Tony From Long Island

    TK, as someone very familiar with ankle bracelets, they are not foolproof and people who are bad at their job can “forget” to monitor them. I know a guy whose parole officer went 6 months without checking his bracelet and never noticed that it hadn’t been charge that whole time.

    I am for bail for very serious and violent cases only.

    . . . . . 51 senators? Used to be 60 . . . . *sigh*

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    It’s always been 51 for confirmation.

    What it used to be 60 for was “cloture” — the procedural vote to end debate and move to a vote on the motion.

    In 2013, the Democrats ended the 60-vote cloture requirement for all nominations except SCOTUS, using the “nuclear option.” That is:

    – The 60-vote cloture bar is not met.

    – Someone raises a point of order saying that only 51 are required.

    – The chair rules that no, 60 votes are required.

    – The ruling of the chair is appealed.

    – 51 or more vote to overturn the ruling of the chair, establishing a precedent that nullifies the 60-vote requirement.

    The GOP pulled the “nuclear option” on SCOTUS nominations in 2017.

    Personally, I don’t see a 60-vote cloture requirement as anything but a way to draw things out (voting down cloture is sometimes erroneously referred to as filibustering, which is actually a different thing). If it takes a majority to pass something, it should take a majority, not a super-majority, to say OK, we’re going to stop talking about this and do this.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    Yeah, I know the ankle bracelets aren’t perfect. Then again, they’re cheaper than cells and corrections officers and guard towers and such and allow people (both accused and convicted) to lead some semblance of normal lives, at their own expense instead of taxpayers.

    I’m COMPLETELY against bail for any purpose but incentivizing appearance at trial. That’s it’s only legitimate purpose and there should be no option to deny it except this one:

    All this “he’s too dangerous to be let out” stuff begs the question — as if he’s already been proven guilty. If the prosecutor has the evidence to be sure that this guy is guilty, let the prosecutor move for immediate trial — THEN hold the guy without bail if HE wants a delay before trial. If the prosecutor doesn’t have the evidence to be sure the guy is guilty, the guy shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place. “Arrest him, then we’ll try to figure out how to prove he did it” is bullshit.

  15. paulie

    If speedy trial requirements are taken seriously, that shouldn’t be a problem.

    They aren’t, though – and haven’t been in a long time.

    1) That’s what bail is for.

    2) These days, the prisoners are expected to pay for their own confinement.

    Many who are jailed or imprisoned can’t afford either one.

    Personally, I suggest doing away with cash bail altogether. If someone’s not a flight risk, release on recognizance. If someone is a flight risk use the monitoring anklet. Problem solved (“possibly dangerous” is irrelevant to pre-trial confinement — presumption of innocence, remember?).

    Depends on the case. For most accused persons I agree. But if someone is a serious risk of committing additional violent crimes, or of being a crime victim themselves if they are allowed out of jail because there is a widespread public belief that they are guilty of notorious crimes, exceptions may need to be made – as in some current cases where bail is outright denied.

    As far as standards for Kavanaugh are concerned, the only applicable standard was “do 51 Senators choose, for whatever reasons they deem acceptable, to vote for him, or not?” This is neither criminal nor civil litigation, it’s politics.

    Clearly that’s the legal standard, but we are talking about what our own standards would be if we were in a position to make such a decision, how we should evaluate the choices senators have made in this regard when they seek reelection, and so on.

    Personally I don’t think the guy should have been let within 50 miles of a SCOTUS seat for all kinds of reasons (4th Amendment, executive power to execute without charge or trial, etc.). But I’m not a Senator, so what I think doesn’t matter.

    Agreed. And while our opinion doesn’t matter as far as him actually being seated, it does matter to some degree – we are a part, albeit a small one, of the public pressure mechanism that shapes how Senators vote in such matters.

  16. paulie

    TK, as someone very familiar with ankle bracelets, they are not foolproof and people who are bad at their job can “forget” to monitor them. I know a guy whose parole officer went 6 months without checking his bracelet and never noticed that it hadn’t been charge that whole time.

    Good point.

    I am for bail for very serious and violent cases only.

    You mean the ones that don’t even get bail OR ROR as options now?

    . . . . . 51 senators? Used to be 60 . . . . *sigh*

    Another good point. Once that standard fell by the wayside, this kind of mess was inevitable. What led to it was the prior loss of the 60 vote standard in other judicial appointments. And before that came organized Republican stymying of any and all Obama judicial nominees. Every step along that route, by both halves of the duopoly, has made things worse.

  17. paulie

    Personally, I don’t see a 60-vote cloture requirement as anything but a way to draw things out (voting down cloture is sometimes erroneously referred to as filibustering, which is actually a different thing). If it takes a majority to pass something, it should take a majority, not a super-majority, to say OK, we’re going to stop talking about this and do this.

    What it used to accomplish was make both Democrats and Republicans put forward judicial nominees that large numbers of both could stomach. Since they did away with that rule the courts have become a lot more politicized and are now just another battlefield of the duopoly’s turf war.

  18. paulie

    Yeah, I know the ankle bracelets aren’t perfect. Then again, they’re cheaper than cells and corrections officers and guard towers and such and allow people (both accused and convicted) to lead some semblance of normal lives, at their own expense instead of taxpayers.

    I’m COMPLETELY against bail for any purpose but incentivizing appearance at trial. That’s it’s only legitimate purpose and there should be no option to deny it except this one:

    All this “he’s too dangerous to be let out” stuff begs the question — as if he’s already been proven guilty. If the prosecutor has the evidence to be sure that this guy is guilty, let the prosecutor move for immediate trial — THEN hold the guy without bail if HE wants a delay before trial. If the prosecutor doesn’t have the evidence to be sure the guy is guilty, the guy shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place. “Arrest him, then we’ll try to figure out how to prove he did it” is bullshit.

    Mostly true. But if you have someone who is arrested in the midst of a major violent crime spree, or at the scene of a notorious terrorist incident, you want to leave it solely up to the accused whether they are confined before trial? Even if trial can be held quickly that’s a bit extreme. You could easily have more crimes or fleeing or both. Also, some such people may be suicidal or insane, so they may actually welcome the notoriety of becoming a crime victim themselves in retaliation. It may make sense to confine some of them for their own protection, or if we don’t care about their protection, that of bystanders or those who may become the victims of mistaken identity of those seeking revenge against them.

  19. paulie

    Meanwhile at Trump rallies “lock her up” seems to be a generic chant whenever a female Democrat comes up: Feinstein and Pelosi have been added to Clinton as people who should be locked up. Anyone know whether any Mango Mussolini rallies have featured any “lock him up” chants about men? Do drumpfkins just have a fetish for caging women (or at least women Democrats)?

  20. DJ

    paulie: Do drumpfkins just have a fetish for caging women (or at least women Democrats)?

    Me: Are all modern day Libertarians face of big gov’t Democrats hiding behind Libertarian tags?

  21. DJ

    I see comments here about the 4th amendment- since when do leftist care about the constitution? Does that happen only when Republicans abuse it? You people are at least transparent in your hypocrisy = phony.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But if someone is a serious risk of committing additional violent crimes”

    What do you mean by “additional?” The person has been convicted of nothing. He is presumed innocent. “Serious risk of committing additional violent crimes” begs the question of the guilt that has not yet been proven.

    “or of being a crime victim themselves if they are allowed out of jail because there is a widespread public belief that they are guilty of notorious crimes”

    Then detail police for protection. It’s not the obligation of the accused, who is presumed innocent, to stay in a cage.

    “exceptions may need to be made – as in some current cases where bail is outright denied.”

    The Constitution prohibits unreasonable bail. No bail at all is by definition unreasonable.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I see comments here about the 4th amendment- since when do leftist care about the constitution?”

    They’re the only ones who ever have. In fact, they cared so much about it that they wrote it.

  24. paulie

    TLK, I admire your level of consistency, but I think in some cases exceptions will still need to be made. Some people are denied bail because they are flight risks and/or an imminent threat to themselves and others. If someone picks up a gun, knife or bomb and uses it on people every time you let them, having them on the streets awaiting trial is not the best idea. Let’s consider having Tim McVeigh, Robert Matthews, David Lane, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Charles Manson RORed awaiting conclusion of trial. Presume them innocent all you want, but they would be an imminent threat to themselves and others and in many of those cases of fleeing into an underground of likeminded supporters every time they are apprehended.

    I’ll fully agree that we have gone way too far in the other direction in the real world as it stands, but I don’t see RORing such extreme cases as a viable proposal. Even a polycentric legal order would have to have some way to keep chronically violent criminally insane individuals from being imminent dangers to themselves and others and fleeing from justice.

    Perhaps I’m not pure enough there? Am I getting too status quo mushy?

  25. paulie

    cared so much about it that they wrote it.

    Wasn’t the constitution a move to the right, vis a vis articles of confederation?

  26. paulie

    I think the question still stands. Aren’t there male Democrats equally deserving of being locked up? If it’s true that “lock x up” chants at Mango Mussolini rallies are always about women, why is that? Do they just watch too many womens prison movies or what?

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    “Wasn’t the constitution a move to the right, vis a vis articles of confederation?”

    Well, yes — in fact, the Constitution was the counter-revolution. Its purpose was to put the hoi-polloi back in their place once they’d done the heavy lifting of muskets, etc. and put the planter/merchant aristocracy back in charge (but without having to answer to superiors in London). Which is why Washington led an army into Pennsylvania before the ink was dry on the damn thing and had people arrested for “erecting seditious poles” (liberty poles, the symbol of the revolution).

    But the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution. It was a last-ditch effort to thwart the worst aspects of the Constitution, and its leftist backers managed to get it passed as a condition of letting the counter-revolution go forward at all.

  28. paulie

    TLK: I’m a fan of the Bill of Rights – all of them (despite not wanting to have e.g. Dahmer, McVeigh, Tsarnaev and Manson out on their own recognisance awaiting conclusion of trial). That support for the BoR certainly does include the Second Amendment and has nothing to do with which half of the duopoly is in which office, although I gather secondhand that a certain prolific troll here says otherwise of me.

    However, I gather that the chief opposition to the Bill of Rights at the time was also from the left, ie those who thought that a Bill of Rights would not be needed because such rights are self-evident and would always be universally understood anyway, and that codifying them would lead to the erroneous belief that this list of rights is comprehensive. Despite the 9th and 10th amendments, the latter objection proved to be true. The former, not so much. Am I incorrect in my memory that the main opposition to the Bill of Rights was from the antifederalist left and on those grounds?

  29. paulie

    Chuck, my apologies about your comment not posting correctly. I experimented with a setting which was supposed to make it easier for people to comment if they are logged in to their facebook, wordpress, twitter or google plus accounts. It did not work as advertised and I got rid of it. Let me know if you still have any problems commenting. I know it’s frustrating – my apologies again – as I have lost long comments before to various glitches, but I am still interested in your thoughts on these questions if and when you get around to posting them again. Try some short comments first to test if it’s working for you correctly now, and maybe back up any long comment before you post it (I don’t always do that either, but it’s generally recommended when possible – no comment system is perfectly glitch-free).

  30. DJ

    Knapp: They’re the only ones who ever have. In fact, they cared so much about it that they wrote it.

    Me: That was then, this is now- the face of the left, Democrats. are as guilty, (as Republicans), (the face of the right) if not more so, in ignoring it or twisting it. Democrats are blatant in their disrespect- the media, a noted tool of the left, (tho that is another argument) supports the face of the left, Democrats, especially where the 2nd amendment is concerned- of course it’s all a charade as both subscribe to the one thing that enslaves us all- monetary policy, and the *modern* left enabled it with the fed reserve act.

    Yet, there is not one peep against Democrats (until paulie’s above post) against Democrats (and dl’s post that if Democrats were in charge it would be different, to which I called BS)- by simple deduction, or arithmetic, that makes posters here supportive of the face of the left *now* (not the past) Democrats, because- Trump- who is different than either, personality wise, but, his *policy’s* will be, historically speaking, no different than his predecessors, D or R- but, he is Trump, a face, if not the face, of the right, using the same tactics, (obnoxious), as the left = see paulie’s many rants against Trump as being alt-reich as though his rants are pure as the driven snow which is pure bullshit- and yes I am biased against his stupidity, defined as, blinded by hate with a lack of introspect (in his rants) that stems from my calling him out about antifa and Charlottesville- with which I will point out to anyone, right or left, Trump was correct in his public assessment- equal guilt- though I will (honestly vs paulie’s intellectual dishonesty) the *fault*, if fault is to be assigned, is on the city itself and it’s directing the cops to intentionally bring the opposing sides together- but, he moves the goal posts and wants to discuss *why is a permit required* and all statues need to be removed= the face of the left *today*- which is not what was originally intended.

  31. DJ

    And, I’m still waiting for the influx of past, and new, posters since Andy was banned- the *cult* of personality politics is alive and well in the Libertarian Party and sits around here with their esoteric nonsense wondering why the Party doesn’t grow when it’s so obvious- it’s the 3 finger pointing back syndrome being ignored.

  32. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie,

    Thanks for fixing that!

    The gist of my comment was that judicial review is consistent with the founders’ vision and was mentioned twice in Madison’s notes on the constitutional comvention — both time widely agreed and uncontroversial.

  33. paulie

    By author. Anything anyone with a long history of involvement with alt parties writes is fair game. However, we ask that our article authors add a blurb about the author’s alt party involvement to head off that question.

  34. paulie

    Here’s the blurb I used at the end of the last Knapp article I posted to IPR:

    “IPR note: The author has run for office several times as a Libertarian Party candidate and served multiple terms on LP exec comms at various levels.”

  35. dL Post author

    How does this post relate to the IPR mission of third party political coverage?

    The subject matter was broached in a recent press release by the LNC. The topic’s political ramifications certainly fall under the purview of interest of third party politics.

  36. Tony From Long Island

    DJ: ” . . . . .I see comments here about the 4th amendment- since when do leftist care about the constitution? . . . . ”

    *sigh* possibly one of the dumbest and most uninformed posts in a long time. I am a democrat who LOVES the constitution. One thing I love most about it is how it can be interpreted different ways by different people and neither are wrong.

    Anyone who would post such nonsense has absolutely no knowledge of 4th amendment jurisprudence.

  37. DJ

    Tony: *sigh* possibly one of the dumbest and most uninformed posts in a long time. I am a democrat who LOVES the constitution. One thing I love most about it is how it can be interpreted different ways by different people and neither are wrong.

    Me: No, you love interpretation- even though, without definition, interpretation can’t exist. Words mean things- e.g. Liberal (modern day Liberals ain’t) Conservative (root is conserve= status quo) shall not be infringed = unless the SC (or Democrats, the face of the left) says it can= usurp= intentionally misinterpret.

    You may believe me to be dumb = your opinion about me as a person = you’re biased toward my political leaning even though I despise politicians on *both* sides who believes that by ignoring one side, as is done here = advocating for the other side which is prevalent here illustrated with *no* denigration of Democrats who are the face of big/more gov’t, which, ostensibly, Libertartians oppose- but not here.

    Anything the width of a period to the right = alt-reich, because- Trump = complete, unhinged idiocy.

  38. DJ

    ju·ris·pru·dence
    ?jo?or??spro?odns/
    noun
    noun: jurisprudence

    the theory or philosophy of law.
    a legal system.

    The Constitution is *not* a philosophy, nor a theory. It clearly states what is allowed and *not* allowed.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    There are *no* caveats- just as there are caveats with “shall not be infringed” or as above- “shall not be violated”.

    Jurisprudence = theory. Precedent is interpretation= installing caveats. Typically, based on “what if, might happen when” = thought policing illustrated in modern day asset forfeiture which “jurisprudence” (interpretation)- lets consider too, militarizing cops= setting precedent. All of which is immoral simple because “jurisprudence” is apparently misunderstood, or more likely intentionally mis*interpreted* by those who pay others to teach them to lie legally- lawyers = politicians, especially D and R stripes.

  39. Tony From Long Island

    *double sigh*

    jurisprudence is also case law – the court’s interpretation of your beloved constitution. Liberals have fought and argued for a broad interpretation of the 4th amendment for decades.

    Ya know. . . there are words after “shall not be violated.”

    I do not think you are dumb. Your post was dumb. It was uninformed. It was 100% politically biased regardless of whether you despise “both” sides.

  40. paulie

    The subject matter was broached in a recent press release by the LNC. The topic’s political ramifications certainly fall under the purview of interest of third party politics.

    That’s probably too broad of a criteria. If any article discussed in any press release by any alt party and which has purview of interest to non-duopoly politics we could just post any article on virtually any political issue topic (war, economy, civil liberties issues) written by anyone, published anywhere. While such a site would be of interest to, likely, more people, it exceeds our focus here (should that change?) … but I think my previous answer is still correct in this case, that it is in bounds by virtue of original author.

  41. dL Post author

    While such a site would be of interest to, likely, more people, it exceeds our focus here (should that change?)

    No, it shouldn’t change, but I didn’t publish an article from an anonymous anyone. Next time I will beef up the byline…

  42. paulie

    *sigh* possibly one of the dumbest and most uninformed posts in a long time.

    That’s why I’m glad I stopped reading DJ’s comments. Too much nonsense, too little time. The less others here respond to him the better off we will all be.

  43. paulie

    I do not think you are dumb. Your post was dumb. It was uninformed. It was 100% politically biased regardless of whether you despise “both” sides.

    Precisely. DJ is not dumb, but his thoughts are such a tangled mass of error that any attempt at untangling it just makes the mess more tangled. It’s simply not worth the effort, which is why disengagement is the preferred approach in this case.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    I kind of wondered why this piece got picked for IPR myself. It really doesn’t touch on third party / independent politics. But I’m always happy when someone thinks something I wrote is worth reproducing 🙂

    Paulie, you write:

    “Am I incorrect in my memory that the main opposition to the Bill of Rights was from the antifederalist left and on those grounds?”

    My understanding was that the main opposition to the Bill of rights was from the Hamiltonian right on the grounds that the Constitution already enumerated powers and that the federal government wouldn’t have any powers that weren’t enumerated.

    My impression is that the anti-federalist leftists were the primary supporters of the Bill of Rights, such that they drove the compromise that allowed the Constitution to be ratified, but only if the Bill of Rights came along with it.

    Of course, “left” and “right” as we know them were just starting to emerge, in France, where the authoritarian political class (nobles and clergy, the First and Second Estates) sat on the “right” and the productive class (peasants, farmers, tradesmen, merchants) sat on the left and, while mixed in ideology, encompassed the libertarians and was largely defined by its opposition to the centralization of power by the right.

  45. dL Post author

    I kind of wondered why this piece got picked for IPR myself. It really doesn’t touch on third party / independent politics. But I’m always happy when someone thinks something I wrote is worth reproducing

    It was a hot topic of discussion among members of the LP on this site and on social media, with many of those members advancing the argument that the supposed lack of due process afforded to Kavanaugh in the Senate confirmation hearings was a big win for the political right. I thought your piece addressed that suspect conjecture. On social media, at least, these LP members were mostly of the newly signed up variety…hint, hint. So, I think the topic does have some relevance to current LP politics and by extension, 3rd party politics. So, I published your piece here.

  46. DJ

    Tony: Ya know. . . there are words after “shall not be violated.”

    Me: I’m quite aware- but, the definitive words are- shall not be violated – the words after describe what can be done and how, “but upon probable cause”- probable cause is not to be made lightly on a what if or might happen, or as is the case too often, on bad information as these would be violating, yet it does happen because- interpretation, which is what I’m biased against.

    BTW, I hope you don’t hyperventilate with all those sighs.

  47. DJ

    paulie:

    *sigh* possibly one of the dumbest and most uninformed posts in a long time.

    That’s why I’m glad I stopped reading DJ’s comments. Too much nonsense, too little time. The less others here respond to him the better off we will all be.

    Me: Bullshit. Is that simple enough for you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *