Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you (or Ty) saying he should go down over this without some investigation of her claim? That seems really bad precedent given the style of opposition that has existed to every nominee that might change the make up for some time now. I get there may be other reasons people oppose him, but on this one thing, however blunt our instruments might be for investigating, I think it has to happen? i mean you aren't suggesting a pass?
|
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.
Threaded Mode