When it comes to presumption of innocense, something has been left out

Trial By Jury

The US Supreme Court ruled on the presumption of innocence in 1930. The case was Taylor VS Kentucky. Some say that in the abscense of evidence to the contrary incense is assumed. It is a principal of criminal justice it is not a right.

Therefore, whether a confirmation process is a job application or a court proceeding is irrelevant. What is relevant is the 6th amendment. What is relevant is the right to an impartial jury. The right to an impartial jury.

It is true that Kavanaugh was never charged with a crime. However, he was accused of criminal activity. The confirmation hearing was not a criminal prosecution. Lynch mobs did not rely on criminal proceedings either. And there was no presumption of innocence in lynchings. Justice Thomas called his hearing a high-tech lynching of an uppity black man. The victim of a lynching is not provided the presumption of innocence. We should all be offended by lynchings. Kavanaugh was presumed guilty and the mobs are out in force.

Kavanaugh was convicted before he was named, much like minorities were guilty as soon as they were identified. Some would call those dark days in our nation’s history. Others are trying to bring them back. But we all know rich white guys lives do not matter. Mob justice may.

Not a court of law. Not a trial. Just the advise and consent process, a job interview, for a court position. Remember the 6th amendment? Reminder. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

When did senate chamber become a Star Chamber? When did the tenets of American Jurisprudence morph to an inquisition. A Supreme Court nomination has a national jurisdiction, it impacts us all. If the nominee is to be accused of criminal misconduct he has a constitutional right to an impartial Jury. According to the tenets of Voir Dire biased of impartial jurors should be removed from the process.

Now think about this for a moment. Is a panel of senators that have stated they will resist with all their might qualified to sit on a jury? Or, are they unqualified to advise or consent. They would be immediately removed from the process. Apply the same principal to the demonstrators. Should they have a voice, given their prejudice. How many black men have been exonerated by all white juries? Prejudice is a cultural disease.

It is not a job interview, nor a court of law. It is a judicial conformation process which should be governed according to constitutional principles and rights. Reference the 6th amendment. If the presumption of innocence does not apply to the rich and powerful, I pity the poor.

"It is not a job interview"

Yes it was.

1 Like

boil it down to a simple slogan, avoid thinking at all costs.

Lock her up.


Your wall of text is predicated on that straw-man. You are welcome to tell us how it wasn’t.

No trial or jury is indicated because no one is talking about assessing any fines or penalties against him.

It was akin to a job interview. He has no right to a jury. He has no right to any fairness.

So that is the new standard going forward. DEMS can simply make stuff up in order to slander any nominee and that immediately disqualifies them?

I don’t doubt for one second that you would be ok with that.


Build that wall

A job promotion.

Where he was interviewed with no problems. No problems found in he 12 years on the job. Then got a little angry when he was falsely accused of a crime 36 years ago (24 year before he was hired.)

It is a nomination confirmation process and the “rights” involved are those which each voting Senator decides. As I recall, in her speech Senator Collins said she was using a standard of “is it more probable that he did it than not”, and concluded that without corroboration or other evidence, in this instance the charge was too weak to stand.

1 Like

context, context, context

Going forward? It’s always been the standard in politics. The right has never felt any compunction slandering the left, especially lately.

What’s your point?

The OP makes it so clear that the presumption of innocence is not inn the Constitution, but impartiality is.

It was not a job interview, it is a confirmation taken from the advice and consent language in the Constitution,

as some say it was a job interview, please have those same sullen voices refrain from discussing investigations and impeachment.

It’s a job interview, and no different than an employer rejecting a candidate based on their social media history, which is the norm in 2018. Does everyone get the same “presumption of innocence” for their questionable Facebook pictures?

You are the one presenting it as more “elite” than the average person.

simply because it is more elite.

you are the very first to equate senators with divine emperors today

Oh, so now “I pity the poor.” is just window dressing for yet another political thread on Kavanaugh, huh? Who cares bout the millions of people who get rejected from jobs for far less…

The presumption of innocence is specific to due process. No due process requirement no presumption of innocence

“A little angry”. ROTFL - understatement of the year.