Cases like this are supposed to be settled in a proper court
of law, not the "court" of
public opinion. Before the 24/7 news
"cycle", the media were not so
insistent on trying these cases in the "court" of public
opinion.
The "court" of public opinion is not a cousin, but a sibling, of lynch mob justice! That has a very poor track record at
determining true outcomes, which is why
we supposedly outlawed it (except that the media and our political figures have
brought it back).
And don't kid yourself,
an open Senate hearing is nothing but another “court” of public opinion.
The proper way of dealing with this would have been to do
the police investigation, and present
the results to a grand jury. If worthy
of an indictment, then go to trial with
it. If not, safely discard the issue.
Meanwhile, if the
accused is a public figure being considered as a nominee for a judicial
post, then (1) he is innocent until
proven guilty, but (2) you don't want to
have to unseat him for a conviction,
afterwards, if he does go to
trial. It is difficult to unseat
judges, even with proven misbehavior.
What that really means is that you put the nomination on
hold, until you find out from the real
courts of law whether he really is innocent or guilty. I'm sorry,
that is the wisest choice, and it
is best for the good of the country.
Simple common sense says so. Very
inconvenient for party advantage,
though.
We seem to have so very few who prioritize the good of the
country above party (or personal) advantage anymore. My advice is vote only for those who would
prioritize highest the public good,
regardless of their party membership.
All else pales in comparison.
GW
No comments:
Post a Comment