My grandfather worked his way up to become chief justice of the Supreme Court in Washington state. He did not believe that judges should be members of the Bar Association although he was required to. he felt that it created a conflict of interest because the Bar Association is a private club, it is not a government entity. All prosecutors defense attorneys and judges are required to be members of this private club and he didn't think that made sense. every year the bar association would send him an invitation to their annual convention in a different big city and in the invitation would be paid for airplane tickets and paid for hotel reservations and paid for car rentals and every year he would return all of those things and pay his own way or not go.
I like the last guys response. Thats the forward thinking a judge should have. Not every decision is going to be a winner, but its good to see someone critically thinking.
What's crazier is that look on his face. What he basically said is that there ARE cases in the US where racist college professors went out and killed some Jews. That's just nuts man. America is crazy right now.
I agree with your comment. The other best, yet different type of response came from Hon. Jacqueline Becerra - she was massively calm and matter of fact, and her response seem to recall her biographical motivational facts, and completely disolved Senator Kennedy's derogatory implications regarding non-membership in the ABA.
I was an ABA member for 2 years after passing the CA bar because it was complimentary. After 2 years I did not feel that it was valuable enough for me to pay for being a member. As an attorney you must be a member of your State Bar (CA currently charges a fee of $510 per year). You are not required to join any other organizations, be it ABA or your county bar association, it’s a choice, and these attorneys were free to make this choice.😀
Just curious, you explained the why of your membership or lack thereof, I'm not arguing for or against, my own experience is not the ABA, but the union. I am a Federal worker, my only reason to pay dues is because I believe if they have to represent me in specific circumstances, regardless of membership, I should pay for that service. For me it is just about honor. It was a choice, you made yours, you supported your choice, I made my choice and supported it. Why can't the idjits being questioned do the same in a simple answer?
I agree with your comments. In addition, I'm wondering if bring up the question of ABA non-membership is some type of 'dog whistle' or just bring to doubt the qualifications of the lawyers?
I choose the last guy who spoke as the “winner” of Sen. Kennedy’s sanity test on our Constitutional rights. He didn’t have the specific answers but he was truthful and direct.
Yes, the judicial system has been corrupted by politics !'" This is an unnatural state of affairs !" People better wake up from their apathy and pay close attention to their individual responsibility to keep this society sane !"""
@@jakemf1 "God help us" is religion? Well, anyway, I think "the problem" is more complex than that. And judges have always had "leanings." But we have reached a time when even the members of the highest court are openly partisan, and being so seems to benefit them. One member spewed his partisanship during confirmation. Instead of recognizing his unsuitability, the Senate still confirmed.
If I was a lawyer and looking for a law clerk. I would be hiring the best trained person I could. I don't care about their skin color, religion, or politics I just want who's the best one I could get for work and assist me.
@@rhetorical1488 If I told you, you would not find me credible anyway. An ostrich has greater awareness of its surroundings than you. How do you get through the day interacting with people at work, home, at social events? Good luck. You need it.
Let's talk about how John Kennedy asks question of these nominees. Here let me ask John a question using his questioning style... John, when you beat you wife and kids does it give you please every time or just some of the time??? John, please answer the question, reclaiming my time....
@@davebarton6824He has one adopted son. Are you inferring that he beats his c. 40 year old son and his elderly wife? Do you want to rephrase your question, Mr. Barton. It's very leading.
Funny true story: Vojislav Šešelj - while defending himself at The Hague International Criminal Court for Ex-Yugoslavia; part of trial which lasted 12 years without any conviction... When forced to answer with only Yes or No. ; He replied to the main prosecutor, Sir Geoffrey Nice: "Mr. Nice, if you want me to follow your instructions and answer only with Yes., or No., on this circus crossexamination of yours, first you have to give Me an answer to my question directed at you, answer only with Yes. , or No!: "Does your parents know that you are Gay?" P.S. The comment above is paraphrasing of Mr. Šešelj exchange with prosecution, didn't quote him, cause He was speaking Serbian, and it's hard for me to translate his exchange with Mr. Nice (one of many funny ones:) and still not to lose its meaning and his point... Also, using the word "Gay" had no intention to be critical towards gay community, he choose that word, cause its meaning in Serbia/Ex-Yugoslavia was different...it can be used in slang even as friendly thing which sounds stupid ik, but also being called Gay in serious argument especially in front of others was very serious insult. Sry for a super long comment, but if you like interesting trial with tons of black humor by Dr. Šešelj at Hague, just search the yt. Cheers and sry for my English, and I hope most of you got my point, and i made someone smile... greetings from sunny Macedonia 🇲🇰
Oh yes where would all the cheap labor come from? ICE would run them off. How else are the business owners going buy a new Tesla for the old lady and one for them also? Oh also who is going to clean the 6 bedroom, 6 bath house, clean the pool and do the landscaping?
In what contest was ACLU writing that? Ohh Kennedy didn't want to tell him that..why not? So how are he going to answer why ACLU don't want ICE to be in Cali? Why should he even have an opinion on the subject?
@@Fetguf That's not that he asked him. He didn't ask for his opinion on what the ACLU's justification for their statement was. He asked whether he, personally, agreed with the statement or not. Given legal precedent, it was a question with an incredibly fucking obvious answer.
@@Deadgye 2 things: First you cant answer that question without knowing what ACLU's justification for their statement was. Second what legal precedent?
@@andy-cy6zq Was there really a question there? Any LIE to a Congressional or Judicial body is PERJURY! It doesn't matter if it is God, himself, who is lying!
Why is that delusional? It's what he's doing. It's a political tactic to gather sound bites. They do this in these hearings all the time. They're "yes-or-no" questions, but not really. They're leading questions. It's a bad-faith tactic that leaves the witness with two bad options.@@TimothyGraff
@@tomsgarden5141 I'm not sure what you mean. I'm a Republican, and he seemed cool and collected as a nominee should be. If anything, he seemed apologetic that he was beholden to giving a non-answer on account of legal technicalities that prevent him from commenting.
The other best, yet different type of response came from Hon. Jacqueline Becerra - she was massively calm and matter of fact, and her response seem to recall her biographical motivational facts (which is how she managed to make it through the Senator's interruptions without missing a beat), and completely disolved Senator Kennedy's derogatory implications regarding non-membership in the ABA.
ONLY one guy was willing to answer immediately I do enjoy watching Sen> Kennedy. He asks what swhould be very simple questions that should not tak3e several days to answer.
He asks the kind of questions that you or I would ask if we were in his position. After all, it's people like you and me that might have to one day be judged by these people he's interviewing, so we have a right to know what kind of people are sitting in judgment of us.
It's disgusting, there is clearly a weaponization of the law against a political party. They knew how they were going to frame it as it was going on. I hate that our country is sadly come to this. I am afraid that if this doesn't change we will never recover
might of helped if the underlying matters and examples were put forth and the coment wasnt made out of context confused the hell outa me how someone would give an honist answer to that without prepping
so do you believe the should have happened to the three supreme court justices that trump and McConnell put on the court when they said that they would not overturn ROE V WADE because it has been precedence and law of the land for over 50 years? if not then you sir have a morale campus that flip flops when it comes to your political party who is lying to Congress.
And if you were to measure the time it takes to say "Senator" and Thank you for each question it takes time off of his clock. They know who they are addressing and dont need to say this.
I don't think it has anything to do with fear. They simply won't commit to anything and won't stand for what is right or just. They have no conviction in their beliefs, and don't stand up for or fight for justice. This way they can feebly preside over cases and flip flop their judgments as it suits them on any particular day. It is indeed, sad.
@@susannejenson1065 Let's see, should race be used for or against a person is a gotcha question? Being a member of a professional organization or not? She answered that one pretty clearly without hesitation. Donations to organizations is a gotcha question? Out of these questions, the ACLU question isn't out of the norm at all. The ending discussion was a bit off but it's pretty normal. If you think these are gotcha questions that shouldn't be asked, make sure you feel exactly the same way when there is a conservative judge candidate sitting at that table and similar questions and discussions come along. Chances are you will probably defend them then.
Because he asks question that cannot be answered with a yes or no. Then, when the question is being answered he cuts it off and says he wants a yes or no answer because he can't understand the actual answer. Then he jumps on the fact that the answer wasn't forthcoming and it's because the answer is nuanced. He doesn't grasp the importance of the experts and relies instead on his own opinions. Not good.
@@victoriabarefoot7434 BS... most questions have a Yes or No answer. Period. IF I ask you whether you believe gender is fluid or not, you should not reply "Well.. this is not a simple Yes or No questions, blah blah blah" that´s just deflecting the question! You´re being asked a Yes or No question. Please reply "Yes, I do believe gender is fluid" or "No, I do not believe gender is fluid". The problem is that these individuals are simply covering their asses, but if you are for TRUTH, you will not play politics and say the TRUTH!!!
@@GlennLaycock Nope. If I ask you specifically, do you believe unicorns are real, there's no gray shade, that's BS. You should say "No, I DO NOT believe unicorns are real". This is not a when, how, where question, this is a "DO YOU" question. There's a Yes or a No. Period. Now, if they don't want to answer that's another story.
For example, if I ask you "Do you approve of gender ideology being taught in schools" there's no gray are at play, YOU either approve it or not. That is a binary answer.
I cannot stand it when these people play stupid because they know if they don’t then their true intentions come out. Their non answer tells everything.
@@southrules They avoided answering his questions. All of his questions were on point both here and throughout these hearings. You simply do not understand why he is asking them. I can't stand people who claim something is stupid when they are ignorant of the subject.
So you see, the last guy actually answered the questions correctly, and he didn't obfuscate or try verbal tricks. And Senator Kennedy had no problem with that.
100% agree. He gave a couple of thoughtful answers. I'm sure he and I disagree on a bunch of stuff if he's a Biden nominee but he didn't say anything to disqualify himself.
Take it from a practicing attorney who graduated from a top ten law school and worked at two huge multinational law firms in Manhattan. If the ABA bar dues were worth the membership, then these judicial nominees would have paid those fees. The only time I was ever a member of the ABA was when my employer offered to pay the bar membership dues. But for them paying those dues I would never have been a member. It's not even a matter of disagreeing or agreeing with the politics of the ABA. It's just the dues are not worth any benefits, potential or actual, of being an ABA member. The tap dance that these judicial nominees are doing to explain why they are not members of the ABA is pathetic and laughable at the same time.
Same here. The ABA offered me a free year's membership, starting in my third year of law school. I think I paid the dues for one more year after that. I, too, just did not see any benefit whatsoever from American Bar Association membership. I did think the ABA was rather left leaning back then, from the correspondence I received from them, but I kind of was, too back then. Being a prosecutor for five years, made me a conservative, LOL. I begin to realize that the police were the good guys, and that the bad guys were much worse than I ever knew.
If you from them law college you donot care about our freedom of speech or our right to own weapons but I hope I am wrong as a teacher told me once college is take our tax dollars from us to brainwash the smart people
@@ralphholiman7401 Watch Auditing America.. you'll change your mind about some police departments and cops. Some cops are tyrants who bully the people and make up their own laws because they're not properly trained.
@@ralphholiman7401 sounds like the ABA, is like AIA for architects and other professional organizations are all not the gold standards for their fields as they claim.
I wish they would all quit wasting the Senators' time repeatedly prefacing their answers with: "I thank you for the question." We all know that they don't like the questions they are asked.
They are all dishonest, idiots, IF these are the folks running our court systems,no wonder there's so much corruption and injustice!.Love Senator Kennedy,he exposes the truth.
Republicans never give yes or no answers. Why should anyone else have to? There hasn't been one law passed by Republicans in three years and all they do is waste taxpayers' money with hearings with no evidence. Republicans are so mad that diaper dons presidency was a failure, and Biden is hitting it out of the park economically. 5% gdp and lowest unemployment in 50 years. Paid less than 3 dollars a gallon all November in Tennessee here. I don't wanna hear the president doesn't set gas price now, GOP, cause yall seemed to think they did when it went your way. The truth is the Republicans are a waste of money. They aren't going to catch bidens administration doing anything because democrats aren't corrupt. When we found corruption, we expelled it. Not rally around and ignore the law to protect it.
@@WillAsplund Having been a LEO for 30 years I have seen this personally when trying to explain. It would then be up to the prosecution in their examination to clarify.
☝🏻 red facism worldwide whole world privatised already since 2008 -last banking crash and crisis- yes usa too privatized and registered as a business as a whole and seperately of all it´s divisions registered as a business businesses or foundations + all the people in it working for it holding positions of ´legality´ and/ or with a ´legal´ name all registered as a businesses n.b - there is no true legality anymore or anything legal because it´s not based on anything legal that holds legality
You can agree with most of what an organization stands for and disagree with some of what it stands for. The ACLU has represented Nazis as well as denouncing ICE. They aren't exactly easy to agree 100% of the time because their mission is to protect our constitutional rights...and some of us are lousy assholes (who still have rights, of course).
If one cannot answer yes or no to a question of what they believe they have Zero integrity and can be bought, period. A true man or woman have morals, self respect, and know who they are and will say it without question and will not care if you agree or disagree with them. I would never trust someone who puts on a different face depending on which situation they are in. You find common ground while accepting the differences.
these hacks can't say yes or no because one would be a flat out lie and everyone knows it and the other would be an open admission that they're not suitable for the office, so they try to wiggle themselves out of answering at all. It's disgraceful.
The problem was the questions were idiotic. Dude gives ten bucks a month to ACLU and then he has to answer for statements they made when there's no context? Kennedy deliberately refused to provide that context, but wanted the nominee to commit to an opinion on the spot. Then, he said the colleges were committed to equity, diversity, inclusion and "killing Jews." He could just as reasonably asked the guy when he quit beating his wife.
The reason is because if you answer flat out yes or no you subject yourself to unnecessary scrutiny. For example I as you if you liked waffles and you say yes. I then give you a review of a waffle you did not like and call you a liar. Generally, what you could say to easily prevent that accusation is "I generally enjoy them" or something to that. Like the last guy stated, it could be seen as "prejudging" for a judge to have public comments about live cases. Judges should not have any opinion except the equitable application of the law.
"Some of the biggest men in the United States - - - are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." President Woodrow Wilson 1914
This is what happens when you have to give the answer the senator is looking for, when the question is about ideology rather than the qualifications for the office.
In case you haven’t noticed ideology is what’s controlling everything in this country. You’re delusional if you think qualifications play a part in any decision to nominate or hire anyone on the federal level. Every part of our govt is corrupt at every level. 99% of DC will fall.
@@redbloodedamerican2346 in this case i would superimpose the words, "ideology" and "ideals" as having the same meaning, which would be "what is aimed at" and/or "desired" as a candidate. as for "qualifications", this would pertain to skills and characteristics. it appeared that the good senator was looking for someone to meet his own ideals. not surprising. objectivity is difficult to find in his party, i believe.
@@auntymammalia9384 LOL nope. That's the actual meaning of the words. Not what this person thinks they mean. How exactly was he looking for someone to share his ideas? The most of the people danced around and played dumb on subjects a judge should know. The one person gave actual answers and said he didn't want to get himself in trouble later for making a statement. Good answers vs playing dumb.
God damn, it seems like that last guy has what we’ve been missing in judges for years! He answered with specificity when appropriate, but he also recognized what his role is in the judicial system, and didn’t leave any chance of an overstep. He answered with the same eloquence as the other judges, with a lot of unnecessary fluff, but he actually gave answers that made sense. You don’t have to just say,”yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know/it’s not my place” and that’s it. You can spew out fancy words you found in a Thesaurus and still have your answer make sense!
@@judgegarry That the Right, in general, opposes education, condemns teachers and professors, "disagrees" with science, thinks educated people put on airs, that using big words is being snobbish, that experts and professionals don't know anything about anything (dunning-kruger) and thus overall, think having a large vocabulary is a bad thing.
My God ! These are completely " Incompetent " Nominees ! Fail, Fail, Fail and Fail ! Period ! Do not let these people " Slip By " the judicial process ! They are not fit in any capacity to be qualified for even " dog catcher " !
Look around at our Judges letting killers free, crime at the Highest in History, you have Judges want to remove Barriers in Texas with 4 million illegals heading toward our Border, what a corrupt Administration and just keeps getting worse.
He's not a fan of mincing words and he's not the type to dance around a sensitive topic if he has a question for them he asks them simple as that! For that I applaud and appreciate him 100% for his questioning tactics. He doesn't allow ppl to give non-answers and he doesn't hesitate to cut them off if they begin wasting the time of the members of Congress😂 I keep reading ppls comments about how "he is trying to find people who share his own ideals" and yada yada yada and I think it's quite funny that these people don't seem to understand the reasoning behind the way Sen. Kennedy goes about asking his questions😂
@@mouthofthesouth4267but he wasn't being simple. When he asked the first guy if race could harm a candidate, the nominee said neither harm nor benefit. Then Kennedy asked whether it should race should benefit a candidate. The guy already answered the question. Kennedy either wasn't listening or he was only listening for certain things that he could put in a bullet point for later dispersal. And God he hems and halls all over the place. Just state your question for God's sakes
Yes, indeed, If they ever find sen Kennedy (a lawyer) lying side by side by a skunk on a Lousesianna county road, the skid marks will be on the skunk!🤣🤣🤣
Senator Kennedy is a bully. He isn't asking questions. He is demanding others agree with him. If they don't, he uses the power of his office to hound them.
I believe that incitement to the commission of a felony is an offence. Trump was indicted for inciting an insurrection, and came closer to being convicted than any president ever. Conspiracy to commit a felony is an offence, even if the conspiracy is not carried out. Where I come from, civil fraud has three elements: (1) a represention is made that is false and is known by the person who makes it to be false, or is made with reckless disregard for whether it is true or false; (2) the person to whom it is made acts on it, (3) resulting in damage. You are not allowed to lie under oath, or to disclose classified information without authorization. Lying to police in order to impede a criminal investigation is obstruction of justice, and if made to shield a criminal, also makes you an accessory after the fact. There are truth in advertising laws. You can be sued for defamation. There are all kinds of unprotected speech. Bottom line: You are free to speak, but not free from the consequences of your speech.
Well....no. What actually has he done.... other than constant " word salad". I prefer elected " leadership" to actually accomplish tangible results on issues....rather than throw out opinion, opinion, opinion on issues.
He's really good at presenting quotes out of context and then putting people on the spot to get his sound bite. This is the same Senator that didn't know that his state has one of the highest gun violence rates in the country. If he was honest he'd admit that the policies he advocates are a complete failure.
I don’t understand how these nominees are allowed or to can get away with not answering questions. If a nominee cannot answer a question honestly and directly they need to be taken off the list immediately.
oldogre, OBVIOUSLY, it is better to break down in tears. Crying and throwing a fit earned one Republican his seat on the highest court in the US. Plus, he committed perjury, and that is a must to impress the GOP. His highly partisan rant was icing on the cake.
Remember, these hearings have nothing to do with the issues. They're a chance for guys like Kennedy to get 'face time' for the folks at home. Never let the person under oath finish answering a question if it's not the answer you want. Remember the only ones under oath are the ones being questioned, not Kennedy.
Its Hilarious to watch these people try so hard and fail to respond to his questions. Ive literally stopped watching sitcoms and have switched exclusively to these questioning sessions. Ive never been more entertained. 😂
I'm a former attorney, licensed in four states, currently studying for the California Bar. I was an ABA member for two years after I acquired my first law license. I didn't find being an ABA member to be very helpful at all. It was a waste of money, not worth the membership cost. I would have asked Senator Kennedy just what the purpose of his question was. I mean, whether or not you're a member of the ABA has no significant relevance with regards to your ability as a judge or an attorney. Maybe I need more context than just this video to understand the point Senator Kennedy was trying to make.
"Why" is not a yes or no question, despite Kennedy cutting everyone off the second they started to answer reasonably and honestly. If you are familiar with Kennedy, you know the incontrovertible fact that he is a despicable stooge.
Guess you do not know what "nuance" means. Anyone asks for a "yes" or "no" answer doesn't want relevant facts or opinions, jst point scoring. That's why it is common in law courts, but nowhere else.
Why do we have people like this at any kind of a Authority position is beyond me the more I keep seeing these interviews the less confidence I have in so-called leader ship for our country
SENATOR KENNEDY IS A BRILLIANT, INTELLIGENT, OUTSPOKEN AND NO NONSENSE MAN. HE WANTS STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO HIS QUESTIONS. THESE PEOPLE REFUSE TO ANSWER YES AND NO QUESTIONS AND IT'S RIDICULOUS!!
It would be so frustrating seeing these idiots lie to you and avoid questions and answer a different question by making a speech about something else.. This is terrible I don't know how they keep their sanity
Are you referring to Kennedy or the woke nominees who care more about their personal political ideology than doing their actual job which is to uphold the law as it is written rather than ignore it and judge every case based on their ideology instead? Anyone who did that prior to our insane "woke era" would have automatically been disqualified for the role.
Thank you Senator kennedy for all you do,America thanks you from every heart.america learn to give your xmas ealry as were on new years,Happy new years American people the blessing is confirmed yours.
And this despicable panel of judicial nominees is exactly why America is suffering the way we are suffering now! Judges are human and they have biases and opinions, but these people are zealots! 😮I’m a retired career prosecutor and I see a big and disturbing shift in judicial demeanor 😢🙄😳
Hi. Im from the UK and absolutely ❤ senator Kennedy. He asks simple, straight to the point Qs which any normal person should be able to give an equally measured answer. Im getting from this video these guys are lawyers Right? Sooo, in court, represinting clients these very same people demand simple, straight to the point answers from witnesses without allowing any leeway for the witnesses own context but here they are believing they are entitled to fluff around simple enough questions with non sensical word salads? As much as its great to watch them squirm in their seats it only shows their true nature. Worms. Its no different here in the uk either so im not having a go at your US system. Just clearing that up for the easily offended in the room. We all love colour in the world but too many have forgotten that black and white are also prime colours and they can be used very easily in order to make things run smoothly. We dont always need to add more colours to our opinions. If you cant give your opinion in plain black and white when required you only invalidate it. What a spider's web we are being spun. Just my humble opinion.
I thought that candidates for judicial office were expected *not* to take a particular stand on an issue, lest it give away their positions on potential future cases. While folks might argue one way or another about whether that is a good idea, Mr. Kennedy knows quite well that it is not considered appropriate for him to ask those kinds of questions.
it is quite appropriate for him to ask those questions, as it weeds out the political hacks and ideologues we don't want in office. Like the hack who can't get himself to admit that he's a racist and fully supports the anti-white and anti-law stance of the ACLU.
Why can't Kennedy say: "I'm going to read you part of a letter with no other context or reading the rest of the letter: Do you agree or disagree with the part I read?"
because he's already saying exactly that. He didn't ask him about the total context or totality of the letter. He asked about a statement they made and whether or not they agreed with that statement. This isn't a hard question to answer unless you are attempting to evade the question for the purposed of hiding bias
Because there is no context in which bigotry and racism is moral, ethical, or legal. They refuse to answer this basic question not because they don't have enough context, but because they don't know if it's the specific kind of bigotry that liberty hating authoritarian leftist bigots like, or whether it's bigotry they obviously do not fundamentally disagree with but use simply just to virtue signal about. The only context these bigots desire is whether or not it's the kind of bigoted behavior they like or not, regardless of the fact that bigotry in general is immoral and unAmerican and technically illegal.
So many folk saying "Why can't they answer with a simple yes/no? They're so bad!" Back in the 90's there was a question asked in elementary schools all over the place that really shows why they don't answer with a simple yes/no. Kids would ask other kids "Do your parents know you're gay?" If you say "Yes" it's implied you're gay. If you say "no" it's implied you're gay. Either way, you're gay. The way the individual asking these questions framed them put every one of them in the same situation. "Do you agree with this statement" when there are multiple parts to that statement that you may or may not agree to is a loaded question. Every question he asked was a loaded question.
"The first amendment gives people the right..." NO IT DOESN'T. Why do even "legal experts" say stupid shit like this? The Constitution does not GIVE rights. It prohibits the government from VIOLATING those rights.
lol agree, foghorn leghorn coullion is a hateful fete putain which isn’t a compliment in Louisiana French! I hate his fake accent. And I nearly died when Clay Higgins used the word Boo as if he speaks the Cadjin language. He’s also a nutcase.
My favorite thing is when they ask "here is a controversial thing you said on social media. Do you still believe it to be true." and just watch them fall all over themselves to not admit that they actually DO have controversial and many times abhorrent views.
It’s very simple there is absolutely a ton of bias in government, the laws or judgments are only applicable or enforced when they meet their ideological. If this weren’t true why are we dealing with such much problems in this country/world.
The esteemed Senator Kennedy said he was "a little confused". The NZ Branch of the Sen Kennedy Appreciation Soc begs to suggest that the Senator is never " a little confused" but is merely sharpening his mental razor a little more.
Senator Kennedy is one hell of a politician ..but one that is way above most politicians in the moral sense.Our nation needs more gentlemen in office of this type..He is honest ,sharp,and a man of principle..