As a law professor for half a century, I tested the consistency and strength of my students' arguments by constructing thought experiments in the form of challenging hypothetical cases — we called them hypos. So let’s construct one to test the arguments being offered in the Kavanaugh case.
A thought experiment: President Hillary Clinton nominates the first Muslim-American to the Supreme Court. Let’s call him Amir Hassan. He is highly qualified and his nomination is widely supported by most Democrats and some centrists.
Most Republicans oppose him and accuse him of being a judicial activist. Then several witnesses place him at a mosque at which terrorism was advocated. He claims he went there to hear all sides of the issue. One witness places him in a terrorism training camp but that account is not corroborated. One final witness identifies him as the man who planted the bomb that blew off his leg at a demonstration. He categorically denies any association with terrorism.
How would the Senate, the media, ACLU and the public deal with these accusations?
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
4 comments:
Witnesses placing him at the mosque can be corroborated...if corroborated, that would provide doubt for the safety of the country...had Kavanaugh's accuser's witnesses corroborated her testimony - we would be talking the same doubt vs risk for him as well!
The Kavanaugh situation didn't pass the smell test from th outset based on DiFi's handling of the accusation towards political expedience for her agenda...
These two examples are not similar enough for the shoe on the other foot test!
Dave T: Then liberals would likely commemorate him with a plaque, gold star, special Rose Garden Ceremony, and possibly even dedicate a special day in his honor.
But HE is not - so lets move on!
They would defend him. No, they would do what 1:00 PM said. Yes they would
Post a Comment