Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Right, well obviously we have had this whole "President nominates a potential justice" and "Senate confirms the potential justice" system since 1916 (well actually since well before then, but the actual confirmation hearings didn't start until then; before confirmation was a simple yes/no vote).
It's preserved the "principles of decency and fairness" from back then until now (despite Republicans recently undoing some of the very rules that used to be in effect to help ensure those principles). Nothing about Kav's experience suggests that it's stopped working. Even if he'd gotten a real investigation, and it had found something that lead to him not getting confirmed, there'd still be nothing.
But look, those principles, and the legal concept of "due process", are not the same thing. Getting confirmed by a publicly elected body is not the same thing as going into a court room, even though the two have similarities. Eating and drinking are similar too, but if I talk about drinking a hamburger (when my mouth isn't wired shut) you're going to look at me funny.
|
The Committee vets the nomination.
Part of their job is finding the truth.
How do you find the truth?
Do you assume things when finding the truth?
Do you say to yourself "This feels like the truth"?