This is being passed around on FB
I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.
-
The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.
-
Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
-
Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principal the that United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.
-
Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.
-
The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.
-
Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.
Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.
But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.
Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.