The Presumption of Guilt The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.

[Captain Adverse]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

The Presumption of Guilt. The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down…

[T]he Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court...

This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge...Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta...

Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you...

A third tenet of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser. The point is to test an accuser’s facts and credibility, which is why we have an adversarial system...

We don’t doubt that Ms. Ford believes what she claims. But the set of facts she currently provides wouldn’t pass even the “preponderance of evidence”—or 50.01% evidence of guilt—test that prevails today on college campuses. If this is the extent of her evidence and it is allowed to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, a charge of sexual assault will become a killer political weapon regardless of facts. And the new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

 

[Lutherf]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prover they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

It's not even "believe the accuser". It's "Garland didn't get appointed so whatever we choose to do is wholly justified". It's PURE politics and it's exposing the utter contempt for the Constitution that Democrats (and no small number of Republicans) hold.

 

[cabse5]

Completely agree OP.

 

[jimbo]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual rights.

The bolded part is interesting. I've seen something around 60 or so of her former classmates, including those she claimed as witnesses, who have signed support documents of one form or another. I've not seen any supporting her. Curious.

 

[Tangmo]

Accusations against Catholic priests molesting boys and girls 30 years ago and 20 years ago get investigated. Conservatives believe adults who as boys or girls were molested. Investigations are held to find the facts. However, Conservatives reject adult women coming forward years later to expose a good ol' boy Conservative teenage desperado and preppie golden boy. I didn't see any of this included in the WSJ editorial by its Conservative editorial board. The reason is that Conservatives conserve their most precious values, attitudes, mores. Rape and attempted rape are clearly at or near the top of the Conservative list of things to conserve.

Not.

We need FBI to investigate.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Accusations against Catholic priests molesting boys and girls 30 years ago and 20 years ago get investigated. Conservatives believe adults who as boys or girls were molested. Investigations are held to find the facts. However, Conservatives reject adult women coming forward years later to expose a good ol' boy Conservative teenage desperado and preppie golden boy. I didn't see any of this included in the WSJ editorial by its Conservative editorial board. The reason is that Conservatives conserve their most precious values, attitudes, mores. Rape and attempted rape are clearly at or near the top of the Conservative list of things to conserve.

Not.

We need FBI to investigate.

Read for comprehension instead of knee-jerk responses.

LOCAL law enforcement investigates violation of State crimes. The FBI investigates Federal crimes.

They do background checks yes, but unlike Anita Hill's case Ms. Blasely Ford has not provided sufficient information for the FBI to do a "background check" process.

This has been pointed out in thread after thread. Meanwhile this is a Red Herring response, deflecting from the OP.

 

[Lutherf]

Accusations against Catholic priests molesting boys and girls 30 years ago and 20 years ago get investigated. Conservatives believe adults who as boys or girls were molested. Investigations are held to find the facts. However, Conservatives reject adult women coming forward years later to expose a good ol' boy Conservative teenage desperado and preppie golden boy. I didn't see any of this included in the WSJ editorial by its Conservative editorial board. The reason is that Conservatives conserve their most precious values, attitudes, mores. Rape and attempted rape are clearly at or near the top of the Conservative list of things to conserve.

Not.

We need FBI to investigate.

When 10 altar boys come out and blame the same priest there's evidence. When one woman blames one guy and NOBODY else corroborates the story and 6 FBI background investigations didn't turn up the kind of behavior involved the accusation is little more than spitting in the wind.

 

[Deuce]

Dear WSJ:

This isn’t a criminal trial you dumb ****s

 

[Tangmo]

Read for comprehension instead of knee-jerk responses.

LOCAL law enforcement investigates violation of State crimes. The FBI investigates Federal crimes.

They do background checks yes, but unlike Anita Hill's case Ms. Blasely Ford has not provided sufficient information for the FBI to do a "background check" process.

This has been pointed out in thread after thread. Meanwhile this is a Red Herring response, deflecting from the OP.

This is a federal case of a federal judge and nominee for Scotus.

You are anyway running away hard and fast from the fact Conservatives conserve their values, attitudes, mores, and that the instance of Kavanaugh is the current Exhibit A. Conservatives are jumping all in over the defense of Kavanaugh while attacking Dr. Blasey-Ford and everyone here who seeks a fair and impartial hearing of her by the 11 crotchety conservative Republican men on the committee. Kavanaugh spent his preppie years blacked out in a drunken stupor to awaken in the gutter of his own vomit which is where his credibility is.

 

[trouble13]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

This isn't new. It's a well practiced tactic that the left with the help of the media has been employing for decades. How many times have we heard that it's not the evidence of the crime but the serouseness of the accusation that demands it be investigated. This really isn't any different, in principle, than what they are putting trump through. The only difference here is the accusations against Kavanaugh cut across ideological lines. This has the potential to backfire on the left in a very big way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Tangmo]

When 10 altar boys come out and blame the same priest there's evidence. When one woman blames one guy and NOBODY else corroborates the story and 6 FBI background investigations didn't turn up the kind of behavior involved the accusation is little more than spitting in the wind.

One woman is a hundred thousand women since Kavanaugh the desperado.

 

[ecofarm]

He's being confirmed for the highest judicial position in the world. He's not being sent to prison, right?

 

[Lutherf]

One woman is a hundred thousand women since Kavanaugh the desperado.

Great, now Kavanaugh is Wilt Chamberlain.:doh

 

[Tangmo]

Great, now Kavanaugh is Wilt Chamberlain.:doh

Kavanaugh was a preppie desperado.

 

[Deuce]

I mean honestly who among us hasn’t almost raped someone? Boys will be boys.

 

[Tangmo]

I mean honestly who among us hasn’t almost raped someone? Boys will be boys.

And Conservatives conserve their values, attitudes mores, perogatives, privileges.

Worse yet Conservatives project. Wrong headed projection. Nobody's being holier than thou here in criticizing Kavanaugh, although that would not be tough to do.

 

[ludin]

Dear WSJ:

This isn’t a criminal trial you dumb ****s

It doesn't have to be a criminal trial.
the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim.

it is not the job of the accused to prove themselves innocent.
it is the job of the accuser to prove that.

it doesn't matter if it is in a trial or a baseless accusation.

that is a founding principle of our society and our country.

the morbid and frankly appalling behavior that you can simply accuse someone of something and they are guilty of it without
you being able to support it is disgusting and no one should ever support said ideology.

 

[ludin]

I mean honestly who among us hasn’t almost raped someone? Boys will be boys.

prove someone has and you might have a case.
simply crying "it's a witch" doesn't make it so.

 

[ludin]

He's being confirmed for the highest judicial position in the world. He's not being sent to prison, right?

it doesn't matter it is no up to him to prove his innocence he is already innocent.
it is up to her to prove him guilty. it doesn't matter what his position is or is going to be.

you don't get to scream "witch" and make that person a witch without evidence.

 

[Tom Horn]

it doesn't matter it is no up to him to prove his innocence he is already innocent.
it is up to her to prove him guilty. it doesn't matter what his position is or is going to be.

you don't get to scream "witch" and make that person a witch without evidence.

even if you fall down an convulse on the floor?

 

[Deuce]

It doesn't have to be a criminal trial.
the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim.

it is not the job of the accused to prove themselves innocent.
it is the job of the accuser to prove that.

it doesn't matter if it is in a trial or a baseless accusation.

that is a founding principle of our society and our country.

the morbid and frankly appalling behavior that you can simply accuse someone of something and they are guilty of it without
you being able to support it is disgusting and no one should ever support said ideology.

There’s no burden of proof. This is a job interview. If 51 senators vote no because they don’t like his hair, that’s the standard.

 

[ludin]

There’s no burden of proof. This is a job interview. If 51 senators vote no because they don’t like his hair, that’s the standard.

sure there is. it doesn't matter 1 iota if it is a job interview. he still doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

 

[independentusa]

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

Lets see, did the GOP give Bill and Hillary Clinton the presumption of innocence when investigating whitewater, Benghazi or the emails? NO, I think they found them guilty and then tried to prove it which has never happened even after what, 11 investigations of Benghazi. I am sick of the hypocrites that like to act like the GOP and its followers are innocent of the very things they try to pin on the so called liberals and the Dems.

 

[Deuce]

sure there is. it doesn't matter 1 iota if it is a job interview. he still doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

I didn’t say he needs to prove himself innocent. I said there’s no requirement to prove him guilty. It’s a job interview, not a trial. If 51 senators say “better safe than sorry,” then that’s it. If 51 senators say “I don’t like his nose,” then that’s it.

 

[ludin]

I didn’t say he needs to prove himself innocent. I said there’s no requirement to prove him guilty. It’s a job interview, not a trial. If 51 senators say “better safe than sorry,” then that’s it. If 51 senators say “I don’t like his nose,” then that’s it.

that isn't what they are saying. your right this isn't about him being innocent this is all political.
this is about smearing a good man's name for the sake of politics and how anyone can support it is beyond me.