From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:19:31 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu sez:
>>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>>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.
                                              
>And how are such facts established, pray?  Does the SJC chairman just
>call up Nathan Engle to find out what he thinks is or isn't The Truth?

    As you well know, the opinions of Nathan Engle don't establish anything.

>Note that word, Nathan: evidence.  The point of the extended hearing
>was to receive *evidence*.  Under your inane schema, a nominee has to
>be an ex-con for the SJC to have any business inquiring more closely
>into his fitness for the bench.

    That's not entirely true. Under my "inane schema" a nominee could 
be considered to be unfit on the basis of poor judicial experience and 
background. IMHO lack of experience was the biggest gripe against Thomas 
and it's a shame that it wasn't discussed more thoroughly instead of all 
that tripe about pubies on Coke cans. Thomas's sexual preferences do not 
interest me. His judicial record does. If, as I believe we would both 
agree, Thomas's judicial record didn't warrant his appointment then I'd 
say that it's a shame that that real issue got derailed by the circus, in 
much the same way as I would say that it's a shame that this discussion 
is being derailed by your colorful but irrelevent pejoratives. 

>>>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?

>Can you actually be this stupid?

    Yes, but that isn't the point. Please address the question.

>Now hear this: the point was to ascertain Thomas's fitness for the
>bench.  Since Thomas was head of the EEOC at the time of the alleged
>incidents, and was therefore the top official responsible for
>enforcing Title VII, it was relevant to showing whether or not he's a
>person who can be trusted to carry out the duties of his office
>properly.  Had Thomas previously been an under-secretary at Treasury,
>the SJC would have been equally interested in testimony that indicated
>he had engaged in embezzlement of government funds.

>Capisce?

    I believe I see your point, however if that's the basis of Ms Hill's 
charges then I am even less impressed than before with the strength of 
her testimony. It seems to me that her testimony would be very relevent 
if Thomas was being reappointed to the EEOC since his alleged actions were 
contrary to the goals of that organization. I'm not convinced, however, 
that Thomas's alleged unfitness to be the head of the EEOC also implies 
that he's unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. His judicial record is much 
more applicable in that case.

>>    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.

>Right.  You think the SJC was trying Thomas on criminal charges.  You
>think Hoerchner's testimony was hearsay.  You think there's no reason
>for any evidence to be brought in a Senate confirmation hearing unless
>it's direct proof of a prior criminal conviction.

    I believe that you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. I 
would say that there's every reason to bring evidence concerning Thomas's 
judicial record, since that evidence pertains directly to his ability to 
do the job for which he was being "interviewed". 

    My position concerning evidence is therefore not that it should be 
disallowed unless it could be used in a criminal trial but rather that 
it should be relevent to issues which would affect his performance as 
a supreme court judge. Apparently it's your opinion that Ms Hill's 
evidence met those criteria, but unfortunately I do not agree. And before 
you ask again, "Yes, I can be that stupid".

>Imagine how impressed I am with your grasp of the facts and the law.

    I'm sure that your respect for my grasp of facts and the law is 
equalled only by my respect for your ability to stick to the debate 
rather than stooping to name-calling.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc