Ckorik on 02 October 2018
| 2.) But even if we're going with the most basic "gotcha!" here and just taking AP's scant quotes on the subject, the principle I'm talking about still holds up: someone not willing to take a "lie detector" test, which has been categorically shown to have scant scientific evidence in its favor, should not be any determiner as to whether or not Kav gets on SCOTUS. Even the College Humor guy has expatiated on this topic so it's not like many people suspect you're going to catch Kav red-handed like this is Meet The Parents. |
No - I agree with you - I also understand that they aren't admissible - however he *as a judge* argued they are relevant. That matters because his legal opinion is on record and in a judgment. As a member of the SC he may be (may is a strong word - but appropriate here) be a swing vote to allow their use for trial. The hypocrisy (in my opinion) is in issuing a legal opinion that they have validity, while hiding behind the legal defense that they are not permissible. Given he has actually made *legal rulings* on them - that is valid.
