From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:19:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: misc.legal

In <nate.804@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, 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?  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?  


>
>    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.


>    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.



>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.

>    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.


>    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.


>    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.


-- 
        1992 Awards for Yeoman Service to the Democratic Party:
1st prize: Pat Buchanan  2nd prize: Craig Fuller  3rd prize: James Baker
	 Honorable mention: Rich "They aren't Americans" Bond
      * Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism