Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think the Senate ought to set high standard and put the burden on him and his advocates to meet those standards.
That might be done through an FBI investigation or in some other way. But putting someone on the court while there is an open question as to whether or not he engaged in serious sexual misconduct, likely criminal if it occurred, doesn't seem to me a risk worth taking for the Senate. And if you think questioning without investigation by a bunch of amateurs is going to settle the question, well, I bet you'd even believe that a negative sign could be a dash.
That may not be completely "fair" to him, but that's not the senate's problem. The Senate's problem is having a Supreme Court with credibility when it rules on issues, including the whole set of highly controversial gender related issues around abortion, birth control, sexual violence, harassment in the workplace and elsewhere, and the many due process and other issues that arise relating to those. This isn't a court proceeding, its a job interview where there are any number of equally or better qualified people eager to get the job.
|
Maybe watch Advise and Consent? I don't care if he makes it or not. but FWIW I think it inevitable that Trump will get someone on.
If there is an FBI investigation on something that happened a million years and we hear that it is likely something happened, and that means he should not be on the court, god bless. But we can't just say she said this happened so he's toast, right? Beyond him, you realize how this precedent stuff works?
