Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Dill]

(10-05-2018, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll add you with Fred who assert the presumption of innocence is not a basic human right. Even thought the UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over a 1/2 Century ago which states: It is a basic human right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. 

Why do you, Fred, and others deny Kavs this basic human right? 

I am not sure I can untangle this for you better than Fred or the Jesuit Fathers.  But I'll try.

1. No one disagrees that in a "court of law"--specifically a criminal trial--Kavanaugh would be owed the presumption of innocence. So please stop saying that people are denying him a basic human right. 

2. Millions of people find the allegations of Ford et al. credible. Kavanaugh's own awkward denials, and their conflict with what other friends have said about his youthful drinking, have raised serious questions about his integrity and appropriateness for the highest court in the land. As the America editors argue, the handling of the allegations has made the confirmation about more than just that. It has become a referendum on how allegations of sexual assault will be handled by those in power. Trump's public mocking/mimicing of Ford going public with allegations of sexual assault put the seal on that.

3. Finally, no one has a "basic human right" to a Supreme Court confirmation. Hearings about the suitability of a nominee are not held in a "court of law."  As Justice Stevens and the 2400 law professors cited above note, federal judges are held to higher standards of suitability for office. There is less tolerance for APPEARANCE of conflicts of interest and impropriety. If Kavanaugh is accused of impropriety, then those tasked with assessing the accusation are not in the position of jurors who must meet a high level of certainty to determine guilt. Their task is not only to assess the possible truth of the accusation as far as they can, but also the character of the nominee.  They are not bound in this by statutes of limitation and the evidentiary standards of criminal law. The accusations swirling around Kavanaugh, and his subsequent, flippant behavior--especially the partisan threat that "what goes around comes around" (just wait till I get on the bench!)--unfit him for the job.  His confirmation will drag questions of partisanship into the court itself, further undermining its already fragile legitimacy. 

When all is said and done, whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, his "basic human rights" will not have been violated. No one has to presume him innocent if he or she finds Ford's testimony more credible than Kavanaugh's denial.