Innocent until proven guilty - President Trump called them beautiful words. Democrats responded by saying that then Judge Kavanaugh was not in a court of law and that rule does not apply. That's a true statement, the issue was not before a court of law but I'm not buying that argument.
In this case the US Senate had a duty to decide a question - should Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court be approved. A key issue before them was whether he had committed sexual assault on women in his past. Evidence was presented - both in the form of testimony by witnesses and a report from the FBI.
The Senators then had to make a decision.
So the question becomes what standard would you use to make the determination? If it's not innocent until proven guilty then what? Guilty until proven innocent?
Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not; all of those are measures that are applied after you answer the first question - are you assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
And don't give me well it's only a job interview or an appointment. Once those charges were leveled against Judge Kavanaugh, this went well beyond a job interview or any other normal process. Rejection of his appointment would be the same as finding him guilty. Judge Kavanaugh may not have gone to jail but his life would have been ruined. He'd lose his reputation. His current position would be in jeopardy - how can you let a guy who is guilty of abusing women sit on any court. His family was already receiving death threats and hate mail and that would have just multiplied. I can't imagine any CYO program allowing him to continue to coach girl's basketball teams as he was doing. The list of repercussions goes on.
So I welcome anyone to provide an answer - if the standard of judgement doesn't start with deciding whether to apply a standard of innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent, what does it start with?
Despite denials by the Democrat Senators, the ones who used the sexual abuse charges to justify voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination sure sounded like they were using the guilty until proven innocent standard. Not one ever denied it.
In this case the US Senate had a duty to decide a question - should Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court be approved. A key issue before them was whether he had committed sexual assault on women in his past. Evidence was presented - both in the form of testimony by witnesses and a report from the FBI.
The Senators then had to make a decision.
So the question becomes what standard would you use to make the determination? If it's not innocent until proven guilty then what? Guilty until proven innocent?
Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not; all of those are measures that are applied after you answer the first question - are you assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
And don't give me well it's only a job interview or an appointment. Once those charges were leveled against Judge Kavanaugh, this went well beyond a job interview or any other normal process. Rejection of his appointment would be the same as finding him guilty. Judge Kavanaugh may not have gone to jail but his life would have been ruined. He'd lose his reputation. His current position would be in jeopardy - how can you let a guy who is guilty of abusing women sit on any court. His family was already receiving death threats and hate mail and that would have just multiplied. I can't imagine any CYO program allowing him to continue to coach girl's basketball teams as he was doing. The list of repercussions goes on.
So I welcome anyone to provide an answer - if the standard of judgement doesn't start with deciding whether to apply a standard of innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent, what does it start with?
Despite denials by the Democrat Senators, the ones who used the sexual abuse charges to justify voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination sure sounded like they were using the guilty until proven innocent standard. Not one ever denied it.
Comments