“ Whether or not Hill’s accusations were justified is irrelevant.
Loel Lund
1

Yes, but the argument here is not whether or not Thomas was guilty of the accusations against him, but whether or not the Senate should have pursued the issue.

I’m saying the Senate should have pursued the issue, as this was something that the American people obviously cared about, and could possibly have had an impact on cases Thomas might be hearing. To ignore it and pretend that it didn’t exist would have been irresponsible.

You appear to be saying that the Senate shouldn’t have pursued the issue at all. And you have given no reason for that except for your firm belief that Thomas was innocent of the accusations. But that wasn’t for you to decide, was it? The Senate heard both Hill and Thomas, and when the vote came, Thomas was confirmed. The system worked as it should.

You still haven’t said anything about Garland, and the VERY politically-driven decision by Republicans not to give him a hearing at all.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.