• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?

FJAG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
10,906
Points
1,160
I've been following the Kavanaugh hearings for a seat on the USSC and have been noting various senators comments respecting the lack of corroboration respecting Professor Ford's allegations. Usually these come with comments that she was a credible witness.

This made me wonder about the requirement for corroborative evidence (or even "recent complaint) in sexual assault (or rape) allegations in the US because that doesn't exist in Canada anymore.

Corroboration not required

274 If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272, 273, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 274; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12; 2014, c. 25, s. 16.
Previous Version
Marginal note:Rules respecting recent complaint abrogated

275 The rules relating to evidence of recent complaint are hereby abrogated with respect to offences under sections 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 and 159, subsections 160(2) and (3) and sections 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 and 273.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 275; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-64.html#docCont

My research brought me to this article in the US and the following quotation:

Today, the corroboration requirement has virtually disappeared from the modern
rape law.
According to George Fisher, “No American jurisdiction retains a general
corroboration requirement in rape cases. Georgia abolished the last remaining
statutory rule in 1978 . . . and, Nebraska the last remaining common law rule in
1989.”46 As recently as 2004, Michelle Anderson reported that Ohio is one of only
three jurisdictions retaining the corroboration requirement in any of its sexual offense
provisions.47 Deborah Denno noted that even the drafters of the Model Penal Code
“acknowledged the controversy surrounding the rule in the 1970s and stressed that
attitudes toward the doctrine were increasingly in a state of flux.”48 Many legal
scholars have credited feminist critiques of the corroboration requirement as being
largely responsible for its demise. These critics emphasized that no other crime
required the victim to meet special credibility standards, 49 that the corroboration
requirement operated as a barrier to the successful prosecution of sexual offenses,50
and, finally, that no empirical evidence existed to support the notion that women make
a large number of false rape accusations (i.e., that “ladies lie”).51

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1786&context=fac_articles

That begs the question why Republican senators feel that believing Dr Ford isn't sufficient and that there needs to be something more in the way of corroboration when the law doesn't require it?

Maybe Kavanaugh's express lies about his "legal drinking age" and the meaning of "boofing" and "devil's triangle" while under oath will be sufficient to make them doubt his character.

http://time.com/5409564/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-age-maryland/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Thoughts?

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
Thoughts?

The legal requirement to have or not have corroboration would be an issue if the confirmation hearings and eventual Senate vote were a criminal proceeding (or trial of any sort).  Unfortunately, it is not, so the rules of evidence don't apply.  And, judging from the refusal to hold any hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, neither do accepted rules of common decency or, arguably, constitutional requirements.

Those senators (mostly Republican) likely don't give a toss about whether or not Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh or if the nominee was a booze addled sexual predator in his youth.  If they could say "it was a phase he went through and is no longer that person" and not have to face the wrath of voters (well, those that would disagree with such an attitude), there would probably be one or two knuckle draggers who would.
 
FJAG said:
I've been following the Kavanaugh hearings for a seat on the USSC and have been noting various senators comments respecting the lack of corroboration respecting Professor Ford's allegations. Usually these come with comments that she was a credible witness.

This made me wonder about the requirement for corroborative evidence (or even "recent complaint) in sexual assault (or rape) allegations in the US because that doesn't exist in Canada anymore.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-64.html#docCont

My research brought me to this article in the US and the following quotation:

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1786&context=fac_articles

That begs the question why Republican senators feel that believing Dr Ford isn't sufficient and that there needs to be something more in the way of corroboration when the law doesn't require it?

Maybe Kavanaugh's express lies about his "legal drinking age" and the meaning of "boofing" and "devil's triangle" while under oath will be sufficient to make them doubt his character.

http://time.com/5409564/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-age-maryland/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Thoughts?

:cheers:

I think the most damning aspect of this event is that many have used the "it was 30 years ago" or "he was young and made a mistake" excuse to justify his nomination. This is a very very poor precedent, particularly when discussing a nomination for the supreme court. If the witnesses are deemed credible (and based on their credentials and their testimony it is reasonable to say they're credible) than how can republicans justify his nomination? surely there must be another conservative nomination that could be passed through without sacrificing their political futures....

The reality for most sexual assault victims is that (if you believe statistics) only 6 of every 1000 are reported, with only 3 convictions from those 6. The key issue is generally that rape/sexual assault is by its nature a "he said/she said" event as generally they don't occur in front of people. So, the question is always how do you maintain the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty with the singular nature of the crime and support victims rights? That's the crux of the Cavanaugh debate. IMHO, this should force his nomination from the top court of the land, at least until the facts can be proven in court.

Finally, there's the question of the independence of the supreme court as an institution. How does the court prove itself to be anything other than a partisan tool of either party if you have a judge on it who holds even the stigma of impropriety at best or the belief among a significant portion of the population that they're a sex offender at best?
 
Blackadder1916 said:
The legal requirement to have or not have corroboration would be an issue if the confirmation hearings and eventual Senate vote were a criminal proceeding (or trial of any sort).  Unfortunately, it is not, so the rules of evidence don't apply.  And, judging from the refusal to hold any hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, neither do accepted rules of common decency or, arguably, constitutional requirements.

Those senators (mostly Republican) likely don't give a toss about whether or not Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh or if the nominee was a booze addled sexual predator in his youth.  If they could say "it was a phase he went through and is no longer that person" and not have to face the wrath of voters (well, those that would disagree with such an attitude), there would probably be one or two knuckle draggers who would.

Is the evidence of the numerous women who stood up for him any less valid using the same test?
 
I've been watching this a little and it seems like a huge train wreck.

Ford seems like a huge train wreck herself. I'm not sure if she's normally a wreck of a woman or if her defense team made a point of making her appear as homely as they could. I'm not saying that to be a dick, I think she's being used and abused by the democrats.

Tons of inconsistency with her defense. Sure she was super emotional, I guess to many that equals credibility. But if I'm not mistaken the 3 or 4 witnesses she had all basically denied Kavanaugh's culpability.

It's scary at how many Americans seem willing to forget or ignore lack of evidence and proof. Trying to pick him apart for being angry at being called a rapist and having his life turned upside down is hilariously delusional.

Sen. Graham's rant on Ford's Kavanaugh testimony says it all.

It's all delay tactics to try and block Trump from filling that seat.
 
Delaying a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court for seven days? I'm shocked! < sarcasm  :)

The Republicans delayed Merrick Garland's nomination for 293 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

 
Jarnhamar said:
I've been watching this a little and it seems like a huge train wreck.

Ford seems like a huge train wreck herself. I'm not sure if she's normally a wreck of a woman or if her defense team made a point of making her appear as homely as they could. I'm not saying that to be a dick, I think she's being used and abused by the democrats.

Tons of inconsistency with her defense. Sure she was super emotional, I guess to many that equals credibility. But if I'm not mistaken the 3 or 4 witnesses she had all basically denied Kavanaugh's culpability.

It's scary at how many Americans seem willing to forget or ignore lack of evidence and proof. Trying to pick him apart for being angry at being called a rapist and having his life turned upside down is hilariously delusional.

Sen. Graham's rant on Ford's Kavanaugh testimony says it all.

It's all delay tactics to try and block Trump from filling that seat.

I agree that the timing and circumstances for this are a bit suspect. Not to mention, he will now always be guilty in the court of public opinion.

With that said, sexual assault/sex crimes are horrible things (anyone that's had to investigate/deal with them in their careers can attest) that don't ever leave the mind and need to be taken very seriously.

Unfortunately it's a subject where there is never truly justice for victims, or for the wrongly accused.
 
I heard a commentator, on Fox and very proTrump, claim Doctor Ford's recall was based on regression therapy, which according to a number of sources is a dubious methodology. I don't know if this is true or not, and she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this is a smear, but who knows?

Remember back in the 1990s there was a spate of charges and convictions for child sexual abuse based on something called recovered memory syndrome. It was later determined the incidents were planted by the therapists and did not occur.

I am not being judgemental and would just as soon that the regression therapy played no part in this. However, I don't know, and the recovered memory rush to judgement made me suspicious of long past incidents suddenly being asserted as fact.
 
In the US we have a statute of limitations. The FBI now has begun to investigate these 36 year old allegations. The Democrats are doing everything to derail this nomination.
 
tomahawk6 said:
In the US we have a statute of limitations. The FBI now has begun to investigate these 36 year old allegations. The Democrats are doing everything to derail this nomination.
.........and one can only wonder at the hullabaloo had this been a democrat and the POTUS was democrat and the GOP trotted out a whole bunch of dubious accusers and smear campaigns in order to subvert the process. The fact that none of this was revealed when the democrats approved his nomination to the federal court, very quickly, is totally suspect in itself.

The FBI has a week, then they can give the GOP Senate a chance to bypass the committee and blow up the filibuster. The sooner the better.

Meanwhile, it's a good thing our PM isn't open to hearings like this. However, then again, why not?
 
Not knowing what "corroboration" means in a legal sense, I went to Wikipedia.

"Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition."

What would be the initial evidence?  The accusation and the victim's story presumably are the proposition, and the only other evidence available supports Kavanaugh strongly.  If a person can be deemed guilty based on a story, then the liberal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been shat out, along with the general idea "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted".  If unsupported stories are deemed sufficient, then prepare for many false claims (the kind that are unproven and can neither realistically be proven or disproven) to be levied in future as weapons (in politics, in the workplace, etc).

To summarize, Kavanaugh isn't guilty of anything, and all the people suspecting or alleging guilt have taken leave of their senses (by virtue of ignoring the evidence) in pursuit of their politics.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is the default out of the court as well as in it, except for people inclined to tyranny.  All of the questions people claim have been raised about Kavanaugh's history or temperament speak only to their own prejudices and political agendas.  The Democrats on the committee were raising infantile points and deserved to be brought up short.

People are reading too much into the boilerplate "I found Ford credible" statements.  People against the nomination have a strong motive to say it even if they don't believe it, because they want the nomination torpedoed.  People with reputations (politicians and other public figures, people who are worried about their in-group status, etc) who are for the nomination also have a strong motive to say it, because they don't want to be at the bottom of a pig wrestling match.

Similarly, I doubt the additional weeks' delay is something Republicans regret.  Rachel Mitchell was there to insulate the Republican members of the committee from political (election campaign) heat.  Playing along with the demand for one more FBI "investigation" is also political insulation; Flake, who is not seeking re-election, not coincidentally was one of the few Republicans who could initiate it without consequences from Republican voters.

That everything has been played to effect political delay, including all the excuses made to delay the hearings and to delay and extend any kind of further investigation, tends to negate the possibility that any of the accusations have any merit.
 
Highest court

Highest standard.

Pretty simple.

For all the apologisers and conspiracy theorists, try applying the above litmus test to your odd protestations.
 
In which case Kavanaugh should be confirmed.  He's had an exemplary career and led a praiseworthy life.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Not knowing what "corroboration" means in a legal sense, I went to Wikipedia.

"Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition."

What would be the initial evidence? The accusation and the victim's story presumably are the proposition, and the only other evidence available supports Kavanaugh strongly.  If a person can be deemed guilty based on a story, then the liberal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been shat out, along with the general idea "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted".  If unsupported stories are deemed sufficient, then prepare for many false claims (the kind that are unproven and can neither realistically be proven or disproven) to be levied in future as weapons (in politics, in the workplace, etc).

To summarize, Kavanaugh isn't guilty of anything, and all the people suspecting or alleging guilt have taken leave of their senses (by virtue of ignoring the evidence) in pursuit of their politics.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is the default out of the court as well as in it, except for people inclined to tyranny.  All of the questions people claim have been raised about Kavanaugh's history or temperament speak only to their own prejudices and political agendas.  The Democrats on the committee were raising infantile points and deserved to be brought up short.

. . .

The sworn statements by any complainant in an assault case (including sexual assault) is in fact evidence and not a mere "story". If believed then it is sufficient to convict. If the accused also presents evidence which is credible then that leads to a reasonable doubt upon which he/she should be found not guilty.

Thousands of people in Canada are convicted on the basis of evidence by a sole complainant every year. That's how the law works both here and in the US.

There is no evidence that supports Kavanaugh "strongly". Kavanaugh denies the incident. That is evidence which is open to be looked at critically by anyone since it's self-serving. No other witness has come forward to deny that the event occurred. At best there are people who say they have no memory of it. In the case of Mark Judge it too is self-serving but in short supports nothing one way or the other.

You are right that Kavanaugh hasn't been found guilty of anything. I'm not sure but I presume that the jurisdiction where this happened probably has a statute of limitation on it (Canada doesn't) so I presume he will never be charged with anything much less convicted.

In the spirit of full disclosure I don't like Kavanaugh but my dislike is based on the fact that he is a "constitutional originalist" and entirely too strong a supporter of Presidential immunity. Up until recently I considered him an upright citizen.

What the recent hearings have led me to believe is that he was an entitled frat boy jock in high school and college with a definite drinking problem. More recently there have been questions about his gambling and the $200,000 for baseball season tickets he spent for friends and was repaid. I don't consider that a proven issue one way or the other. His testimony, which I watched, left me with the distinct impression that he lied through his teeth to the committee in order to minimize his youthful indiscretions (I don't include the more serious Ford allegation as an indiscretion; just the general frat boy stuff). Calling his drinking as being at a legal age when it clearly wasn't, his false definitions of "boofing" and "devils triangle" and claiming that his reputation for "ralphing" comes from a weak stomach and not overindulgence in alcohol and the mischaracterisation of the other attendees letters and the numerous other incidents of evasiveness and rationalization all make me question his integrity. This is easily on a par with Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -- and I know how you feel about that one. To me a lie is a lie. I thought Clinton was a liar then and I think Kavanaugh is one now.

[cheers]
 
tomahawk6 said:
In the US we have a statute of limitations. The FBI now has begun to investigate these 36 year old allegations. The Democrats are doing everything to derail this nomination.

the question isn't in regards to a criminal investigation or statutes of limitations and the statement seems to miss the broader point of debate- do you want someone who potentially committed a serious sexual crime (and if he had been convicted would be on a list) to be a judge on the supreme court? Does this judgment seem worthy of the position that is being offered? Regardless of political affiliation (which lets be honest, this is all this is) there is due diligence that should be conducted.

recceguy said:
.........and one can only wonder at the hullabaloo had this been a democrat and the POTUS was democrat and the GOP trotted out a whole bunch of dubious accusers and smear campaigns in order to subvert the process. The fact that none of this was revealed when the democrats approved his nomination to the federal court, very quickly, is totally suspect in itself.

The FBI has a week, then they can give the GOP Senate a chance to bypass the committee and blow up the filibuster. The sooner the better.

Meanwhile, it's a good thing our PM isn't open to hearings like this. However, then again, why not?

Your assertion that democrats/liberals would be treated any differently seems to not really hold water when one considers the fates of Weinstein, Spacey, and Al Franken. Al Franken of course was very much a democrat and was very much forced to resign under investigation by democrats for misdoings which arose. As for the assertion that the GOP doesn't regularly trot out dubious accusers and conduct smear campaigns to subvert a political process, I can only assume that you are being tongue in cheek as you only need look as far as the "birthers" and the prolonged witch hunt about email servers and Benghazi that Clinton was under (or the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for a consentual if ill advised sexual relationship).

Brad Sallows said:
Not knowing what "corroboration" means in a legal sense, I went to Wikipedia.

"Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition."

What would be the initial evidence?  The accusation and the victim's story presumably are the proposition, and the only other evidence available supports Kavanaugh strongly.  If a person can be deemed guilty based on a story, then the liberal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been shat out, along with the general idea "better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted".  If unsupported stories are deemed sufficient, then prepare for many false claims (the kind that are unproven and can neither realistically be proven or disproven) to be levied in future as weapons (in politics, in the workplace, etc).

To summarize, Kavanaugh isn't guilty of anything, and all the people suspecting or alleging guilt have taken leave of their senses (by virtue of ignoring the evidence) in pursuit of their politics.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is the default out of the court as well as in it, except for people inclined to tyranny.  All of the questions people claim have been raised about Kavanaugh's history or temperament speak only to their own prejudices and political agendas.  The Democrats on the committee were raising infantile points and deserved to be brought up short.

People are reading too much into the boilerplate "I found Ford credible" statements.  People against the nomination have a strong motive to say it even if they don't believe it, because they want the nomination torpedoed.  People with reputations (politicians and other public figures, people who are worried about their in-group status, etc) who are for the nomination also have a strong motive to say it, because they don't want to be at the bottom of a pig wrestling match.

Similarly, I doubt the additional weeks' delay is something Republicans regret.  Rachel Mitchell was there to insulate the Republican members of the committee from political (election campaign) heat.  Playing along with the demand for one more FBI "investigation" is also political insulation; Flake, who is not seeking re-election, not coincidentally was one of the few Republicans who could initiate it without consequences from Republican voters.

That everything has been played to effect political delay, including all the excuses made to delay the hearings and to delay and extend any kind of further investigation, tends to negate the possibility that any of the accusations have any merit.

The reality of sexual assaults is that they are by their nature a "he said/she said" crime as generally people aren't raped in a group setting. So, how does the legal system then punish offenders unless there is some mechanism. Moreover, one of the key reasons why women don't come forward is due to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness that include seeing how other women (such as in this case) have been treated and that they wont be believed. The difficulty with a high profile case such as this (or Clarence Thomas) is that it reinforces this image that there's no point in coming forward because you're just going to be accused of lying. Frankly, comparing her and Cavanaugh's testimony was enlightening- she told a story and he got irrationally angry, which made him look guilty (in a personal sense not necessarily a legal sense). Absolutely there must be fair proceedings and the accused must be seen as innocent until proven guilty, but the accuser must also not be viewed as "lying until proven not to be" which unfortunately is how this is always done. If that was your daughter/sister/mother I feel you would have a different opinion. But it's only for a seat on the highest court in the US, so no reason to do any due diligence.

What I dont really understand is why the Republicans are willing to do on the hill for this particular judge. If/when he is pushed through they will lose a ton of political capital, unless it has something to do with his views on executive branch authority and his statement that, "Congress might consider a law exempting a President -- while in office -- from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel."
 
Brad Sallows said:
In which case Kavanaugh should be confirmed.  He's had an exemplary career and led a praiseworthy life.

Other than that unresolved sexual assault allegation, the ABA concerns 12 years ago, and again the recent ABA concerns....but yes, other than that and....oh wait - there was the partisan outburst during his hearing and his churlishness under questioning...but other than all that, I am sure you have it right - very exemplary, very praiseworthy.

 
PPCLI Guy said:
Other than that unresolved sexual assault allegation, the ABA concerns 12 years ago, and again the recent ABA concerns....but yes, other than that and....oh wait - there was the partisan outburst during his hearing and his churlishness under questioning...but other than all that, I am sure you have it right - very exemplary, very praiseworthy.

See here:

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.b1b4314294ff

[cheers]
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Other than that unresolved sexual assault allegation, the ABA concerns 12 years ago, and again the recent ABA concerns....but yes, other than that and....oh wait - there was the partisan outburst during his hearing and his churlishness under questioning...but other than all that, I am sure you have it right - very exemplary, very praiseworthy.

Just clarify, the ABA have no special concerns with Kavanaugh, and continue to rate him as “well qualified” and beyond reproach. They recommended him to the Senate to proceed. Their concern is with the process that has unfolded and support the FBI investigation (which they support) on the sole fact it should not (hopefully) be a partisan led or directed investigation. Further, the ABA is concerned only with allegations raised by complainants, and not the wider probe that is being demanded.

Kavanaugh will fall down not because he did anything to any of these women ( he probably didn’t) but he will go down because of his testimonial conduct and his own credibility in regards to the partisanship allegiance that he revealed in his testimony.
I find it ironic and disconcerting that Ginsberg, now off the court, has come out swinging as a full blown advocate for the partisan nature of judicial nominees as an acceptable method to vet beyond the pale. Although always a strong and persuasive minority voice, she was often the one creating judgements leading the opinions on protection of individuals suspected or accused of fundamental criminal or civil rights for persons accused, militating against narrow minded and poorly executed investigations by the state, and was generally a voice for those who are accused without credible evidence beyond bare accusations. In fact this was the very thing she railed against while on the court.
 
whiskey601 said:
Just clarify, the ABA have no special concerns with Kavanaugh, and continue to rate him as “well qualified” and beyond reproach. They recommended him to the Senate to proceed. Their concern is with the process that has unfolded and support the FBI investigation (which they support) on the sole fact it should not (hopefully) be a partisan led or directed investigation. Further, the ABA is concerned only with allegations raised by complainants, and not the wider probe that is being demanded.

Kavanaugh will fall down not because he did anything to any of these women ( he probably didn’t) but he will go down because of his testimonial conduct and his own credibility in regards to the partisanship allegiance that he revealed in his testimony.
I find it ironic and disconcerting that Ginsberg, now off the court, has come out swinging as a full blown advocate for the partisan nature of judicial nominees as an acceptable method to vet beyond the pale. Although always a strong and persuasive minority voice, she was often the one creating judgements leading the opinions on protection of individuals suspected or accused of fundamental criminal or civil rights for persons accused, militating against narrow minded and poorly executed investigations by the state, and was generally a voice for those who are accused without credible evidence beyond bare accusations. In fact this was the very thing she railed against while on the court.

Do you know something about Justice Ginsberg that we don't know????

Last I saw she was still sitting and had every intention of staying there.  ???

:cheers:
 
As far as I know, Mr. Kavanaugh has not been charged with any crime, nor are the hearings on his appointment before the U.S. Senate a legal matter. There is no "standard of proof" at issue, nor any breach of a criminal statute at play.

This said, it seems to me that the full and sole purpose of "confirmation" hearing before the U.S. Senate are a matter of verifying the suitability and fitness of a proposed appointee for the office for which the appointee is proposed.

In the case of judges of the highest U.S. court, it seems to me that two important factors that should be considered (amongst many and not necessarily above or beyond those others) are whether the proposed appointee shows that he has "good judgement" (in the "common sense" and "fairness"  sense) and is a "wise man" in the most positive sense of the term.

Without going into any debate about the "accusations" against him, I watched his own personal performance before the senate committee and must say that he failed to strike me as someone who has either of those two qualities that I find essential for a Supreme Court judge. In my mind, any Senators who wish to ensure, above party politics, that the Supreme Court is furnished with judges that show good common sense , decency and wisdom should vote against his appointment on the basis of his own appearance before the committee alone.

But that's my personal, free, opinion and it's worth what you pay for it.  :nod: 
 
Back
Top