World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Guilty until proved innocent?
The presumption of innocence is one of the key protections of the weak against the powerful. If we lose the presumption of innocence the primary beneficiaries will be those who are already powerful and everyone else will be made more vulnerable.
If we're looking specifically at Judge Kavanaugh, I'm baffled. The specific allegations come when he was in high school - 17 years old. It's been 35 years, and there is nothing like this coming out of his adult life. Even if it was all true, the statute of limitations expired a long time ago. Even if it's all true, it's something that happened when he was a "dumb teen." The worst wasn't an actual rape, but something the first woman thought was an attempted rape...nothing so heinous that he couldn't take it back. If it's true, it seems he's learned his lesson and corrected his behavior after becoming an adult - it's not something that seems to be a serial offense.Maybe you could argue that it speaks to character in regards to the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but again...high school. Do Senator Feinstein and the other Democrats what their high school misdeeds coming back now? Do they seriously want McConnell and the rest of the Senate expelling them from their seats because of something stupid they might have done in high school?
I agree with Graeme about the innocent until presumed guilty protection for the powerless.Having said that, a sexual assault as a teen is still a sexual assault. And many women have historically been frightened to speak out because of their fear of not being believed. And if a woman thought it was an attempted rape - as a woman that chills me to the bone. No means no.
I'm reminded of this: https://nypost.com/2016/06/06/stanfor...
There are two basic positions.[1] The presumption of innocence, where the accuser has the onus of proving their accusation, if if they can't prove it, the accused goes free. This is designed to protect the innocent at the expense that some guilty people will also go free, but the absolute minimum amount of innocent people will be punished for something they did not do.
[1.a] Major corruption risk is where bad actors in the police/judiciary systems frame or under-represent the interests of an accused, who is then punished for a crime they did not commit.
[1.b] The major beneficiaries of this system are the innocent. Minor beneficiaries are the guilty who get off.
[1.c] This system is the bane of powerful people who would enjoy coercing the innocent, and those who would dissent, into conformity with their own personal agendas.
Major winners = the weaker members of society. Major losers = the stronger members of society.
The presumption of innocence is a key marker of any enlightened and civilized society.
[2] The presumption of guilt, where the accused has the onus of proving they are innocent, and if they can't prove their innocence, they will be punished. This is designed to maximize the number of guilty people who get punished at the expense of punishing the unlucky innocents who are unable to make an effective defense.
[2.a] Major corruption risk is that the powerful will mount inquisitions that target their personal, political, religious enemies, or simply anyone vulnerable who has something (money, sex, etc) that they want who can then be coerced with the threat of accusation into compliance with their wishes.
[2.b] The major winners of this system are the powerful who are able to weather any accusation, and those who "snitch first, snitch best," The major losers are anyone else, especially those without the financial means to mount an effective defense, or the political means to avoid accusation.
This is the system that best suits power-hungry autocrats for whom the most joyful sight is a street lined with dissidents burning at the stake.
The presumption of guilt is a key marker of a savage, brutal and barbaric society.
The evolution of western civilization away from a past of inquisitorial bastardization of 'justice,' to our current standards based on the presumption of innocence, due process, and cross-examination of the accuser has been a major social and civilizational advance.
Unfortunately the innate lust for barbarism, and short-sighted greed for personal political gains are always an ever-present threat to the foundational structures of civilization and those who would defend those structures.
Let's not confuse guilt and reputation. The presumption of innocence shall hold and protect from criminal liability, where the burden of proof is on prosecution to positively prove someone's guilt. However, reputation is a different thing. There are certain positions that require respect, which stems from impeccable reputation (maybe a disappearing human feature).Thus a judge candidate won't be charged with criminal offense because of the presumption, limitation, whatever, but he may not get an appointment which isn't = to a conviction.
Don't know how it is around the world, but there are countries which, for example, register 'criminal record'. Criminal record may follow from a complaint that never amounted to an indictment, however until removed an applicant may be barred from becoming a lawyer, notary, public servant, etc.. Not a perfect system..
Hi Nik,An interesting distinction, I'm not sure what I think about that yet. I'll have to mull it over - perhaps with some wine.
I think the appointment of a supreme court judge is somewhat different from any normal situation. I don't doubt there are political issues here, but I think it is what is behind the appointment that matters. The GOP appear determined to appoint a judge who will overturn Roe vs Wade, and set back women's freedom as much as possible. That is what brought such women out of the woodwork. Had he been a judge who is likely to judge on the law, as opposed to prejudice, then this would not have happened, and the politicians in Congress are too gutless to write the law they seem to want. The courts are NOT the place to bring in oppressive law through the back door, and thus avoid the direct public backlash. Worse, a supreme court judge cannot be forced out, and the number of such judges and their current ages means this judge's prejudices will live a long time.In my opinion, a judge should not be appointed based on predetermined rulings, and that is what is really wrong here.
Agree with Ian - the desirable blindness of justice in such case is torpedoed by political association or liberal/conservative worldview
Ian, I had to think about what you said for a while before replying. I don't see any indication that Kavanaugh would want overturn Roe v. Wade. He has a record of supporting women. As a father (and basketball coach) of two daughters, he takes his role in advocating for women seriously. He has hired more women as law clerks than men. Eighty-four percent of those women have gone on to clerk at the Supreme Court. And he is the only D.C. Circuit judge to have ever hired four women in the same year for a clerkship.
This doesn't seem to me the background of a man who would deny women their rights.
Scout, I don't know the man, of course. My information here was from the NY Times, and it seemed to be of the opinion that the republicans wanted Roe vs Wade overturned. If in fact he is liberal on women's rights, why are all these other women so opposed to is nomination? Given the republicans get to nominate, surely a liberal on women's rights would not generate this almost hysteria?
You should know that the press here have become part of the political process: There's no such thing as objective reporting.What's really going on here: a big political struggle between Democrats and Republicans for dominance in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and the decisions they make affect all our lives. The appointment of a conservative justice at this point would sway the Court toward a conservative point of view for years to come. This is a very big deal. Democrats have pulled out all the stops in order to block the appointment of a conservative justice. They have used delaying tactics in order to delay the nomination vote until after the mid-term elections in November, when they hope to gain enough seats in Congress to block a vote for a conservative justice.
How have Democrats delayed the appointment of this justice? By withholding information they've had for two months about an alleged sexual assault when Kavanaugh was 17 years old. Instead of revealing this information at the time and having closed hearings, they waited until he had been cleared by the FBI and was in the final stages of confirmation. Now they're clamoring for an FBI investigation, which could take weeks, getting them closer to the November elections.
Where do the women's groups come in? There's a big movement here (Me, too movement) that accepts every sexual accusation of a woman against a man as truth. I spent most of the day watching the testimony of the woman accusing Kavanaugh, and of Kavanaugh refuting that testimony. I have to say that I believed Kavanaugh and that there's no proof that he committed any sexual assault when he was 17 or at any time after. The three people who she said were present have all sworn, subject to federal prosecution, that the incident did not happen.
It's the most down and dirty politics I've ever seen. If he doesn't receive the nomination, this man's life has been destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct 38 years ago, when he was 17. No credit given for his spotless reputation during his many years of public service, for the several FBI background checks he's passed in his career. No regard for the denials of the people she said were there. Damned by a "Me, too" bandwagon women's movement that finds men guilty until proved innocent and the machinations of liberal democrats.
I hope he has a chance to be appointed, but I'm not counting on it.
Scout, I realize this is one of those things that is never going to be judged properly. The senate is the wrong place to appoint such a judge, and in my opinion, the correct thing to do is for the Congress to get the law right in the first place. They are just too lazy.It would not surprise me that the Me too movement has got out of hand. It is very easy to make such an accusation. I have no idea who is telling the truth here, but the real question should be, is the man the right one for that job? Again, I don't know, but I am thinking that under pressure, from little I have seen on TV here, he may not be, irrespective of who is telling the truth. What I saw was not a reasoned response, but rather a highly emotional one, and I am not convinced that is what a supreme court judge should do.
An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
Scout wrote: "The three people who she said were present have all sworn, subject to federal prosecution, that the incident did not happen...."If an accusation is found false - people alleging them should have a criminal (when perjury is applicable) or civil liability, like in slander - if one is telling the truth, nothing happens, but if it's not then damages are to be paid..
If such people have really denied the event, then the judge's response, as I saw it, was not that expected of a judge. My view is, irrespective of what happened once upon a time, he is not suitable. I rather think he will be nominated, though, based on political alliances, not on suitability. I rather suspect that if that happens, the mid-terms will not be kind to the Republicans. No politician needs a large contingent of frantic opposition.
First hurdle passed - the panel approved Kavanaugh and he proceeds to the Senate
In our news this morning, I heard that one senator has asked for a week's delay while the FBI investigates the claims. No idea whether that will stand
I think they're already asking the FBI to conduct the investigation. Even Trump has come out agreeing with it. Thing is, the Republicans have just enough senators uncomfortable with the accusation, they have to run the check, expecting it to produce nothing that isn't already known, to put those minds at ease.My thoughts on the hearing? Kavanaugh's performance was by far not the best it could have been. Granted, the Democrats kept trying to pin him in a "gotcha moment" by focusing almost entirely on the background check, but he should have expected that and been prepared to handle those questions when the senators kept hammering away.
While Ford's testimony was more credible than his on the day, what seems to get lost in both performances is that Kavanaugh had his silly calendars (which were not contested by any of the Democrats) to place his whereabouts all throughout the summer in question, while Ford seemed to offer no details outside the bedroom. While I can certainly understand how things like the exact date or the address of the incident get lost in the 35 year gulf since, this is a serious allegation that should require more than a memory fragment to destroy a man's life and career.
Democrats lost a lot of opportunities by focusing almost exclusively on an FBI background check during their individual 5 minutes of questioning. They should have focused on the allegation, hammering him over and over with the question of did he do it. Asking him if he was a sexual predator in his younger days. Painting him in that light instead of someone with something to hide...A couple of senators did pursue background questions, but unfortunately, it got lost in the noise of everything else.
It is worth noting that Congress has impeached a Supreme Court judge for his drinking habits way back in Jefferson's term. If the Democrats had further pushed the questions of Kavanaugh's drinking habits in high school and college, and pushing him on his drinking habits today (since he opened that door in his opening statement when he said he "still likes beer") They would have had a solid precedent for voting against him on that ground instead of having to defend a rather shaky sexual assault claim.
I think the problem is, both parties are more interested in playing political games than they are in seeking truth or justice. Ford is as much a pawn of the Democrats as Kavanaugh is one of the Republicans.
A professor from around here supposedly paid the local FBI office a visit to make a statement corroborating the story that Kavanaugh was an angry drunk in his college days. I suspect his nomination will eventually go down in flames, and it won't be for sex abuse, it will be for his credibility.
Looking at the image of his face that is going around the web, he is at least still angry.
Imagine your reaction if you were innocent and your wife is receiving threatening emails. You fear for your own safety and that of your family. Your reputation is ruined because of unfounded allegations. Would you be angry? These personal attacks have no relevance to the job a Supreme Court Justice is expected to perform.
No, I get that, and when I look at it beyond the basic allegation to the political fight it's wrapped up in, I understand his reaction. If the FBI report comes in, magically discovering that Ford was paid to lie about the allegation, the Democrats would still vote no when the final vote comes up. Many are already moving on from the sexual abuse allegations to focus on his "temperament" in the hearing. Then again, his performance was mild compared with some of the rants that go on on the floors of Congress...
Another FBI background check and interviews with supposed witnesses have found no corroboration of Ford's accusations. At this point, it would be a travesty to deny him the appointment.
Scout wrote: "Another FBI background check and interviews with supposed witnesses have found no corroboration of Ford's accusations. At this point, it would be a travesty to deny him the appointment."Depends on the criteria for appointment. According to the NY Times, over 600 law professors have written stating he should not be appointed based on his lack of control during the hearing, and I happen to agree with that. A judge always has to remain judicious, and the case is, he shot himself in the foot. Whether the accusations are right or wrong is immaterial if he does not meet the other criteria for appointment.
Also, a report here indicated that the FBI investigation was far from adequate because there was a list of people quote who offered to provide evidence and presumably due to time constraints were never interviewed. I suspect the vote that is to be held in the next 24 hrs is something of a poisoned chalice for everyone, and irrespective of the way the vote goes, the mid-terms are going to see blood on the floor - both ways.
He has now been confirmed, so we'll see what effect this has on the election next month...
Yeah, scandalous as it was, but Kavanaugh is sworn in.. It seems the era of scandals accompanying political processes intensifies..
I'm with Ian on this one. I struggle with the idea that a person can be accused and then 'investigated' so poorly, effectively lose his temper in public and have a tantrum, and still be elected to such an influential position.And all in the short time frame in which it happened.
I'm a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty and I have been concerned at the accusations flying around without seemingly much corroboration. That said there is evidence as shown in the cases highlighted by the Me Too movement of extensive cover ups and the difficulty in reporting such cases.My concern in this case was the lack of clear dates and locations in Prof Ford's testimony however compelling and emotional. I'm not a victim of sexual abuse but I would have thought the time date and location would be scarred in memory. This is not to dispute whether it happened but just stating that a jury would struggle.
Then we have the FBI follow up fast tracked investigation or non-investigation
Next we have the various Senator's performances especially the Judiciary committee who from a Democrat side spent half of their allocated time grand standing. I think the Republicans chose well in seeding time to a prosecutor.
Finally we have the man himself. I was appalled b his demeanour for a current judge in a public hearing. If falsely accused he would rightly be angry but in a public court over which he has decades of experience?
Now he will sit in judgement of others and perhaps the furor will come to nothing. He has 8 other justices to guide him and they can only decide on the cases put before them. Here is the current list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
Looks like a lot of very detailed legal arguments, all probably exceptionally important but I could not see anything partisan or particularly politically controversial
Philip wrote: "I'm a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty and I have been concerned at the accusations flying around without seemingly much corroboration. That said there is evidence as shown in the ca..."Half the Democrats on the committee are up for reelection next month. Then you have Corey Booker who's being floated as a potential 2020 Presidential candidate, so he's trying to elevate his standing on the national stage.
Agreed that Kavanaugh's testimony was awkward to watch, but word is, it played well with conservative voters. He may have played it a bit far with talk of left-wing conspiracies, but I think conservative voters wanted to see him fight back on the allegations - if he played it more low-key, it would have looked like he was letting himself get rolled over. It's hard to judge, because this was one snapshot from his life. I think if you can look at his years of service and find this was emblematic of his career - of his time on the bench - then you could argue his temperament isn't suitable for the court.
I think a lot of opinion on the investigation is coming only from what is being said by the two sides. I think the report should be released so we can see for ourselves how thorough it was or wasn't. But I'm not sure it was rushed. Our local station interviewed a former FBI official who said a proper investigation could have been completed in 48 hours, so I'm not sure taking a week was rushing it. According to the Republicans, and I haven't heard any Democrats contesting it (though I haven't heard everything, every Dem has said), the FBI interviewed everyone Ford placed at the party except for one who refused to be interviewed. They're also saying, and again the Dems don't seem to be contesting it, that the report didn't add anything that wasn't already presented to the committee.
I know the Dems are complaining they didn't interview Ford or Kavanaugh. Not knowing how the FBI conducts these kinds of investigations in general, I can't say if that was right or wrong, but the prosecutor the Republicans used during Ford's questioning probably dug into her story a lot deeper than the FBI would have. Maybe the FBI could have gotten a little more from Kavanaugh, but I'm not sure what they could have gotten from Ford that they couldn't take from that hearing.
All that said, the Democrats on the committee have themselves to blame if they don't like how it turned out. Each one of them had 5 minutes to ask all the questions they wanted about the incident and about his drinking. While a couple of them took advantage, most of them cared more about the grandstanding, trying to trap him in this question of the FBI investigation, and frankly, it made them look every bit as crazy as he sought to portray them.
Given specific time for questions, the Dems should have had a list of questions they needed to ask, and each of them should have had a copy, and in turn work their way through the list. One interesting question would be, did his rant to the senate fit with his opinion of how a supreme court judge should behave? That could be difficult to answer; if he said yes, he was approving "unjudgely behaviour" - surely a yellow card offence, and if he said no, he was admitting he was not suitable :-)
He wrote an op-ed admitting he went a little too far during the hearing.https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-...
I supposed you could argue that the experience might actually make him a better judge...now he knows what's it's like for people who get too heated during a traffic stop. Maybe it would make him more sympathetic to criminal defendants, and make him weigh the State's burden-of-proof when criminal cases come to the SC...The Court has a history of deferring to law enforcement when police actions are questionable in whether or not they violate a suspect's civil rights. Maybe if some good can come of this process, we'll see a judge who can use this experience to guide future cases with a little more thought.
If you were falsely accused in front of the entire nation, your family was being threatened, and you had to explain to your children what was being said about you (supposedly exposing yourself in a woman's face), I don't see how you wouldn't be angry. His reaction to false personal attacks was the same reaction I would have had. And his reaction to the ploys of the liberal party were justified. They had info from his accuser two months before it was revealed in a last-ditch effort to discredit him. He was caught up in a down and dirty fight between the parties for dominance on the Supreme Court. This guy served years in public service with no hint of impropriety, and there was no evidence brought forth to prove he did anything of which he was accused.How does his anger at false personal accusations have anything to do with his ability to serve on the Supreme Court? Apples and Oranges.
There was a report in our paper that one of Trump's advisors told him to go that way, to bring the dithering Republicans into line. No idea whether that is true. As for suitability, several hundred law professors seemed to think a judge had to refuse to get so emotionally involved. As for his family, a controlled denial should have been sufficient, coupled with an allegation that this was a purely political ploy.
Kavanaugh's behavior before the Senate Committee is not predictive of his behavior on the Supreme Court. Can we agree that those are two entirely different settings? When testifying before the committee, he was defending himself against unsubstantiated personal attacks, so he reacted personally. As a judge, he has a proven record of being judicial.
I have no idea what his judicial performance has been and I guess it hardly matters because he has been appointed. So I shall bow out.
Scout wrote: "Unproved allegations of sexual misconduct have recently ruined the careers of several men in the public eye, some of those allegations going back twenty, thirty, and more years ago. Many of the acc..."I'm sorry but where were the unproven allegations, and where the lives of these men ruined? Donald Trump was accused by 19 women and he's president. Kavanaugh was accused by three women and he's now a Supreme Court Judge. Bill Cosby was accused by 60 women over several decades and he only recently got jailed - for three years.
I see this as a positive change from when women were not believed and allegations were dismissed. This is precisely what happened with many of these men, which is why their predatory behavior persisted.
Matthew wrote: "Scout wrote: "Unproved allegations of sexual misconduct have recently ruined the careers of several men in the public eye, some of those allegations going back twenty, thirty, and more years ago. M..."I think you're right in that this kind of behavior needs to be clamped down on. I think you're right in that these allegations need to be taken seriously. But they should be investigated by law enforcement. It was brought up in the hearing that the alleged assault is not bound by the statute of limitations in Maryland, and yet Ford did not file a police report, nor does she plan to. It is far too easy to accuse someone of some impropriety and ruin their lives - I think that is the point of the thread, and the reason so many people are skeptical.
We have a disgusting history in this country of using allegations of sexual misconduct as an excuse to jail, lynch, or murder young, black men:
https://nmaahc.si.edu/blog/scottsboro...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/ny...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewoo...
https://www.biography.com/people/emme...
And you may remember these high profile cases where the falsely accused were white:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...
https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/08/2...
It is important to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, but those accusations need to be corroborated, while the alleged victim gets respect (not the death threats Ford was receiving). But in a country where we're supposed to believe in the rule of law, the accused also deserves the benefit of the doubt until the allegations are proven. Otherwise, society goes back to the days of torches and pitchforks and unruly mobs.
J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Scout wrote: "Unproved allegations of sexual misconduct have recently ruined the careers of several men in the public eye, some of those allegations going back twenty, thirty, and m..."Well said.
Kind of on topic...has anyone here seen the Thurgood Marshall movie that recently came out (called "Marshall")? Goes to show how complicated it gets when politics enters the courtroom and how nice it would be if everyone just told the truth. Highly recommended!
I did see that movie. A white woman accuses a black man of rape, although the sex was consensual. Luckily, the jury saw the truth and acquitted. I'm a woman, but I don't think accusations should be taken as evidence in any court of law or even in the court of public opinion. It's scary to me to see accusations taken as fact, with no corroborating evidence. I wondered how many of the women who believed Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh would have believed her if the allegations were made against their husbands, fathers, sons. In those cases, wouldn't they have demanded corroborating evidence? And there was none.
While that presumption of innocence is my view, I honestly do feel bad for those who are raped and can't get justice because the evidence isn't strong enough for conviction. I guess that's why rape and sexual assault remain so common, because like with any case, the burden of proof always favors the accused....and a defense that the sex was consensual usually satisfies the "reasonable doubt" portion of that burden of proof.
Sexual abuse happens in many different ways. This is something I've only told one person about, and it was only a year ago when I finally admitted it to a male friend. When I was five, my uncle sexually assaulted me. I didn't know until years later what had really happened, but he told me not to say anything about it, so I didn't. Once I understood what had happened, there was nothing I could do about it, and I've never told my mom, who would feel so guilty for trusting him. Sometimes you just have to move on and not let something like that become a defining moment in your life. The guy recently contacted my mom about sharing some family photos. I got his email address from her and told him I remembered what he had done to me and not to contact my mom again, or I would tell her. He replied with a denial but said he wouldn't contact us again. And he hasn't. So I personally know what sexual abuse is, but I still say that accusations aren't fact in our justice system. That's just the way it is and should be.
And please don't respond with sympathy. I'm okay. I'm just coming from a place of understanding, while also acknowledging that the justice system requires facts, not merely accusations, in order to prove guilt.
We have a situation here in UK where a police force has written to suspected sex offenders asking them to stop. The letter will be on their police record and therefore possibly show up in job vetting for the rest of their lives. They have not even been charged with the offence or given a formal police caution.This is not justice but suspicion.
I have huge sympathy for the inability to report. I understand victims not wanting to report or the difficulty of a criminal prosecution. I also know that some criminals are just that and in particular sex offenders lie to avoid the consequences of their actions or deny everything just to put their victims through the pain of telling their story.
But if we believe in innocent until proven guilty, we must be very careful about allegations or suspicion without proof. Whether its the trial of a witch or a TV star.
After revealing what happened to me, I felt some shame, even though I did nothing wrong. I imagine that's what most people feel in this situation. There's nothing to be done as far as seeking justice in a case like mine and many others. Sexual abuse is usually one-on-one, with no witnesses, and goes unreported and unpunished because of that. Sad but true. It happens all the time.But if we take every accusation of sexual assault as truth, then every man is open to having his life ruined, as almost happened with Justice Kavanaugh. Ford, his accuser, was vague about details, and the witnesses she named, including a friend, did not back her up. All those women protesting against his nomination were expressing their anger at men who were actual abusers. But there's something basically wrong with accepting accusations as truth, as in the case Philip shared. I imagine men are very afraid these days.
The assumption of innocence until proven guilty protects everyone. The assumption of guilty until proven innocent threatens everyone.
We have one politician running ads trying hurl these kinds of accusations toward her opponent when the only thing he's done is to secure a product placement deal to get one of his company's products placed into a misogynistic music video...and the video doesn't even portray violence/sexual violence. You'd think the Kavanaugh situation would have taught politicians to be careful how they handle these kinds of accusations, but apparently it hasn't, and they're only going to get more reckless...
For me, Kavanaugh's appointment was a step in the right direction. It wasn't political for me, but a matter of justice. Sadly, in a political campaign, one doesn't seem to have any recourse when false or misleading accusations are made. Do you think that could/should change? Or is it an acceptable campaign practice?
For me, it is not acceptable campaigning, but unfortunately it is common. However, for a supreme court position, in my opinion character counts, and it should not be political. I can't see anybody important taking any notice of me on this though :-)
What do you think?