Some die-hard Leftist partisans are asserting that since a confirmation process isn’t a “court of law,” an allegation against a nominee needn’t be substantiated by any verified facts. “Innocent until proven guilty is only a standard of criminal justice,” they say.
How very wrong!
That the presumption of innocence is a standard of justice in our criminal justice system is a reflection of our long-standing subscription to it as a foundational value of Western Civilization.
Why?
Because the presumption of innocence provides every individual the protection of verifiable truth when accused of wrong-doing.
How would anyone protect his/her reputation, creditworthiness or employability if verification of facts no longer “mattered” unless in a criminal case? Would any of the Leftists arguing to reject the presumption of innocence be willing, themselves, to cede their credit, apartment lease, a job or a public office on the basis of someone’s words alone?
“He raped me in the 1990’s – I can’t remember the year or at whose place we were partying, but you all should believe me because I’m a woman!” This is entirely absurd!
What becomes of our shared sense of justice if we discount the importance of proof in drawing conclusions about charges leveled against someone; if it becomes acceptable for members of politically favored groups to ruin the lives, reputations and careers of others on the basis of their FEELINGS and CLAIMS alone?
To reject the presumption of innocence strips the individual of the protection that verified truth otherwise provides, empowering the mob. No wonder the die-hard Leftist partisans want to do away with this foundation of justice.
If whatever anyone has to say about a nominee cannot be verified, then it ought not enter the record, be given time, attention or the power to disrupt any Congressional process.
An allegation consisting largely of a person’s own subjective experiences can paint a vivid picture of an event, a sympathetic picture of the speaker and a villainous image of the person accused. For that reason, it can cause lasting harm to the reputation of the person accused without a commitment to verifiable facts on which confirmation or challenge can turn. Such a tale cannot be disproven so its teller runs very little risk of perjury in offering it to Congress under oath.
Lowering the evidentiary standards under which Confirmation hearings are conducted offers practical immunity to “witnesses” by permitting testimony that cannot be proven untrue.
To treat such a thing with the same respect given to verified facts is to invite baseless allegations and ultimately disable the process entirely. We are already at the point of such dysfunction that naming another nominee would simply repeat this spectacularly stupid exercise in political theatrics.
The only way to salvage not only this nomination but the Congressional process by which nominees are confirmed is for the Confirmation Committee to announce that it will restore order and lawfulness by ensuring that all testimony offered is anchored in verifiable fact. This assures that all witnesses appearing before the committee either in person or via affidavit can be held accountable under penalty of perjury.
Our Senators have an obligation not only to the successful completion of this confirmation but for defending the functional use of this process (the only mechanism by which The People are represented in the confirmation of judicial appointees) against being disabled by malicious and baseless accusations in the future.
My EX Wife taught me a life lesson.
Women can lie very adeptly
Frank