From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:47:33 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu sez:
>>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>    No, I would say that we still can't say anything about the *quality* 
>>of her evidence since it's never been presented in court. What I am 
>>saying is that it was completely beyond the purview of the Senate 
>>Judiciary Committee to decide whether her evidence constituted proof.

>What on earth are you talking about?  The Senate's constitutional role
>is to advise and consent (or not) with respect to such nominations.
>If the SJC can't reach findings of fact as part of that inquiry, how
>are they supposed to make an informed decision?

    They make such decisions by considering established facts.

>  Should they just vote
>up or down based on what time the sun came up instead?

>Or are you making the outlandish claim that the only place for
>judicial nominees to be vetted is in a court of law?  

    No, I'm making the outlandish claim that the only place that judicial 
nominees can be convicted of crimes is in court. They can be accused night 
and day for years on end, but the only place that they can be convicted is 
in court.

>>    That's true, however I would personally hope that they would choose to 
>>base their decision on what has been established rather than what has been 
>>alleged.

>And how do you establish anything if you don't receive testimony? Oh,
>wait, I forgot, you think the SJC shouldn't bother even *trying* to
>establish factual conclusions.

    Certainly not if they involve judging someone to be guilty of criminal 
activity. 

>>    Under our judicial system we establish proof by presenting evidence in 
>>a court of law and then receiving a favorable ruling from the judge or jury.
>>Testimony pertaining to criminal activities is highly pertinent *in a court 
>>of law* where such decisions are made. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is 
>>not a court of law, the Senators who sit on that committee are not judges, 
>>and they have absolutely no jurisdiction to determine guilt or innocence 
>>based on any testimony they hear. 

>No jurisdiction?  Try article II, section 2.

>And once again, "guilt" and "innocence" are terms reserved for
>criminal proceedings.  No-one claimed that this was such a proceeding,
>or that it even involved issues of criminal law.

    That's precisely my point. Ms Hill's testimony would have been 
incredibly damning if she had been able to say that such-and-such a court 
had reached a guilty verdict in a trial of Judge Thomas on the charges she 
outlined.

>>Ms Hill's evidence would have been highly 
>>relevant if it was proven in a court, but in the absense of that validation 
>>her testimony came down to her word against his.

>Wonderful.  Proof by blatant assertion.

    No, proof as established in court of law. She didn't need to have video 
tape or eye-witnesses, but she *did* need to have some validation of her 
charges beyond a bunch of friends who were willing to confirm that she 
told them that she'd been harassed.

>>    I have no idea whether she was lying. In fact, I'm inclined to believe 
>>that she was not lying. Unfortunately, I am also forced to accept that the 
>>charges she made accused Thomas of criminal activity, and I am forced to 
>>concede that the correct venue for the decision of criminal cases is the 
>>Judiciary, not the Legislature. 

>GET A CLUE.  Title VII, which governs sexual harassment, is a civil
>statute, not a criminal one.

    Ok, you got me there. Did Clarence Thomas commit any crimes or did he 
not? If not, then what was the point of Ms Hill's testimony?

>>    Yes, they should have ignored it. Presenting a bunch of hearsay 
>>testimony concerning alleged criminal activities was a last ditch, sleazy 
>>effort which not only failed to stick but also distracted everyone's 
>>attention and took time away from discussion of the real issues surrounding 
>>Thomas's qualifications.

>Please identify the hearsay testimony.  Be *specific*, and make
>reference to article VIII of the Federal Rules of Evidence in cases
>where "hearsay" may in fact be admissible.

    Everything related by Ms Hershorn(sp?) concerning what Ms Hill told her 
that Thomas had said was hearsay. Sorry to not be more specific. I guess 
what you really need is a Legal Juggler.

>>    Instead of "hearings", I believe the word that you were looking for is 
>>"trial". Ms Hill was accusing Judge Thomas of criminal activity, and the 
>>correct venue for pursuing those accusations is a courtroom.

>Gotta cure that erroneous _idee fixe_, Nathan.

    Perhaps. All I can say is that my erroneous _idee fixe_'s seem to bear 
a whole lot more relation to what happened in real life than yours.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59666 alt.politics.elections:23525 alt.rush-limbaugh:9488 talk.rumors:1221 alt.activism:18657