From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:03:15 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <nate.812@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu sez:
>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>>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.

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?
Or could it be that Congress has independent fact-finding powers?


>>  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.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Thomas hearings.  


>>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.

Nobody gives a damn what you think is "damning", Nathan.  Of course a
prior criminal conviction -- not that sexual harassment is a criminal
offense, as you persist in thinking -- would be potent evidence in a
nomination hearing.  

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.



>    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.

Do tell.  Why is it, then, that defendants are convicted of rape every
year in every state on the uncorroborated testimony of the
prosecutrix?  If it's constitutionally permissible to imprison someone
on the basis of such evidence, what makes you think for an instant
that the Senate cannot, in the exercise of its article II section 2
power, act on *corroborated* evidence to deny a nominee a seat on the
bench?

Well?


>>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?

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?


>>>    Yes, they should have ignored it. Presenting a bunch of hearsay 
>>>testimony concerning alleged criminal activities was a last ditch, sleazy 
>>>effort which only failed to stick but also distracted everyone's 

>>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.

You're wrong about hearsay.  I suggest you consult Federal Rule of
Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), which expressly takes testimony of the type
given by *all four* of Hill's witnesses -- testimony to rebut a charge
of fabrication or improper motive -- out of the hearsay rule.

Get it?  Hoerchner's testimony was not hearsay, as that term is defined
under federal law.


>>>    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.

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.

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


-- 
			     819 F.2d 451

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.misc