Why Harry Potter Should Have Carried A 1911

[Schaduwridder]

if you are accused you are most likely guilty

[ScaringChildren]

I have some homework for you motherfuckers, due on Monday:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_a_Mockingbird

[loramin]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We ask for evidence in civil cases as well, you idiot.

If you sue someone, you need evidence.

Jesus christ lol

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sued?

What are you talking about?

There were allegations made against him by a woman.

There was no lawsuit.

Exactly the point I was making. Do try to keep up Mick (and Scared Child).

[loramin]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kavanaugh's case falls under Civil law.

There was no case! He was nominated and then appointed by politicians; the judiciary never even entered the picture (well except in the sense that Kav was trying to become a part of the judiciary).

But please do keep the incorrect statements coming: even a broken clock is correct twice a day right?

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Exactly the point I was making. Do try to keep up Mick (and Scared Child).

What's your point, nerd?

I just said civil law doesn't require a lawsuit.

Public notaries are part of the judiciary, hell even getting married is a legal process.

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There was no case! He was nominated and then appointed by politicians; the judiciary never even entered the picture (well except in the sense that Kav was trying to become a part of the judiciary).

But please do keep the incorrect statements coming: even a broken clock is correct twice a day right?

He went through the judicial system.

It doesn't require a case or lawsuit.

Hell, you even need a witness to get married legally.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by misterbonkers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you could honestly remake this entire video with dino posts

lmao this is like offtopic.txt

my ears hurt

[ScaringChildren]

Calm down, I'll eventually stop political sperging and go back to nihilism.exe mode.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He went through the judicial system.

It doesn't require a case or lawsuit.

Hell, you even need a witness to get married legally.

But you don't need due process to get married!

I don't know how many ways I can repeat this: due process is about ensuring your legal rights. To even have your legal rights questioned in the first place, you need to be charged with a crime, sued, or otherwise threatened with some sort of consequence by a judicial system. Then, and only then, if you don't get a fair chance to defend yourself against those consequences, your right to due process has been violated.

But, and again I don't know how else to repeat this in a way that you'll understand, but ... Kav was neither sued, nor charged with a crime, or in any way involved with the Judiciary branch of our government. He was nominated by the Executive Branch. He was appointed by the Legislative Branch. The Judicial branch had nothing, whatsoever, to do with his appointment ... which is exactly how the founders of our country intended it.

If the Judiciary got to decide who was allowed to become the next Supreme Court Justice it would completely bypass the entire system of checks and balances setup between the three governmental branches.

Surely you woke up from naps in your civics class enough to know about that?

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But you don't need due process to get married!

I don't know how many ways I can repeat this: due process is about ensuring your legal rights. To even have your legal rights questioned in the first place, you need to be charged with a crime, sued, or otherwise threatened with some sort of consequence by a judicial system. Then, and only then, if you don't get a fair chance to defend yourself against those consequences, your right to due process has been violated.

But, and again I don't know how else to repeat this in a way that you'll understand, but ... Kav was neither sued, nor charged with a crime, or in any way involved with the Judiciary branch of our government. He was nominated by the Executive Branch. He was appointed by the Legislative Branch. The Judicial branch had nothing, whatsoever, to do with his appointment ... which is exactly how the founders of our country intended it.

If the Judiciary got to decide who was allowed to become the next Supreme Court Justice it would completely bypass the entire system of checks and balances setup between the three governmental branches.

Surely you woke up from naps in your civics class enough to know about that?

Seriously, dude.

I JUST gave you the definition of Due Process:

fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement

The Judicial Branch of the government also isn't involved when Sally sues you for pissing on her yard either, but that doesn't mean you're not entitled to due process.

And yes, you may not need due process when getting married but you're entitled to it anyway if the need arises. For instance, if the judge says you require two witnesses instead of the one.

And again, if it wasn't a legal process, then why did both parties swear under oath? For shits and giggles?

You're essentially saying that getting married is a more serious legal process than swearing in a Supreme Court Justice (of which there are only 9 in the US).

Please. For the love of God.

Stop being retarded.