On Kavanaugh: due process and burden of proof are not relevant

I don't understand why due process and burden of proof are relevant regarding the Kavanaugh proceedings. He was not before a court being charged with a crime. This was supposed to be a job interview or at least that is what it ought to have been . If I am interviewing a person for a job in my company, and I obtain information that the person was alleged to have stolen from his last employee, but was never convicted or charged with a crime, and I have no other collaborating evidence that would validate that he was a thief, and the individual denies that he committed the crime.

 

In such situation, I am not obliged to afford that person with any presumption that he did not steal from his former employer. Likewise, I am not obliged to conduct an inquiry of this matter in which the person is afforded due process.

 

However, even assuming that Kavanaugh committed the sexual assault that Ford has accused him of, I don't see how what he did as a teenager, some thirty five years ago, has much if any bearing on how he would conduct himself going forward as a Supreme Court Justice. Moreover, given his exemplary treatment of women in his court room and in his professional life over the last thirty five years, I also don't see that this has has much, if any, bearing on what his current character is.

Comments

Dino Manalis Added Oct 10, 2018 - 9:17am
 This should have been investigated a long time ago locally, we don't know what happened in high school or college, but Kavanaugh is currently well-qualified to serve as Supreme Court Justice.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 10, 2018 - 9:33am
In such situation, I am not obliged to afford that person with any presumption that he did not steal from his former employer.
 
You are also allowed to ignore the allegation completely and hire the guy.  Furthermore, this was not an accusation of assault at BK's previous employer, it was 35 years ago.  
 
If your candidate was accused of stealing something from another High School  student, would you even bother to give it a second thought? 
Ward Tipton Added Oct 10, 2018 - 9:45am
I am not yet convinced that Kavanaugh will be a great Constitutional voice on the SCOTUS but the entire farce was nothing but a political ploy to delay the appointment. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 10, 2018 - 3:46pm
Steve H., I suggest you actually talk to HR about what they tell a company a former employee: date hired date left salary history and job title history.  If fired for cause and formally recorded that maybe included.  Unsubstantiated accusation would NEVER BE TOLD TO A COMPANY INTERVIEWING A FORMER EMPLOYEE.   Law suits have been won by former employees because you are taking away their right to make a living.  It is called black listing.
Ken Added Oct 10, 2018 - 4:23pm
The presumption of innocence is the basic premise of everything in America.  It applies everywhere.  You can't just run out and accuse anyone of anything at any time.  If there was no presumption of innocence outside of a court of law, we wouldn't have libel and slander laws.
 
To say there is no presumption of innocence is just absurd.
Cullen Kehoe Added Oct 10, 2018 - 7:26pm
Dueling was popular in the antebellum South--apparently out of control by some accounts. Rumors, misunderstandings, and everything in between could lead to a duel when someone could get killed (people weren't always killed in them). 
 
The death of Alexander Hamilton in 1804 was over some offense that Aaron Burr demanded an apology for and Hamilton didn't know what he was talking about. (Why did he need to apologize to Burr, what was the offense??) So it escalated until Burr challenged him to a duel and killed him. 
 
We don't want to go down the road of baseless accusation leading to real world consequences again. Human passions and emotions need checks on them. People are sometimes mistaken, memories get blurry. There need to be some corroborating evidence or else we should be able to dismiss a baseless accusations. 
Flying Junior Added Oct 11, 2018 - 2:51am
Well it looks like Kavanaugh faces just one more round of baseless accusations of conduct unbefitting a federal judge.  Three of the accusations date before September 20th.  Justice Roberts was deliberately sitting on these pending Kavanaugh's confirmation.  Twelve more credible accusations of unfit conduct have resulted from Kavanaugh's uncontrolled behavior during the hearings.
Spartacus Added Oct 11, 2018 - 10:15am
Twelve more credible accusations of unfit conduct have resulted from Kavanaugh's uncontrolled behavior during the hearings.
 
I see your logic there FJ.  Better yet . . . let's pour gasoline on him, light him on fire and if he burns -- guilty!
You fucking idiots.
Eric Reports Added Oct 12, 2018 - 1:32pm
The charges were criminal.  If it had been a trial, BK would have rights.  Ford, like Hill took advantage of it.
Why doesnt Ford press charges?  Because she is a liar.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 12, 2018 - 9:54pm
"Unsubstantiated accusation would NEVER BE TOLD TO A COMPANY INTERVIEWING A FORMER EMPLOYEE."
 
The key question often asked is "Would you rehire this person?" or something along those lines. 
 
"To say there is no presumption of innocence is just absurd."
 
Not necessarily as absurd as it may sound. As federal citizens ... and if you live in a federal zone, you are a federal or US citizen, you have contracted with the government to enjoy privileges, and do not legally have constitutionally protected, God-given rights. This is all covered in the fourteenth amendment. While it may be a distasteful thought, it remains the truth. How do you think the blatant disregard for Due Process in so many current laws is consistently ruled to be "constitutional" by the supreme court when it clearly circumvents the constitution? 
 
John Minehan Added Oct 13, 2018 - 9:34pm
There is no presumption of innocence in a Hearing for someone nominated to the US Supreme Court.  It is not a criminal matter, there is no risk of depravation of liberty.
 
Further, there is a qualified privilege against an action for defamation against someone sharing information that relates to a matter of public concern in a public forum.