Jack Scheidell weighs in on the Kavanaugh trial
Do not discount the veracity of either side of the Kavanaugh issue.
Respect logic and fact — they trump opinion based on emotional reaction.
Guilty by accusation? Are unproven accusations undermining democracy? Is due process lost?
Does ‘Y” chromosome now make you guilty of anything from the time of entering kindergarten?
Do polls replace our Constitution?
Can fairness be done for both — the accused and the accuser?
Is evidence no longer a required factor for anything? Kirsten Gillibrand kept saying in her recent speech on Ford’s accusation, “I believe her. I believe her.”
On the basis of what? Guilt or innocence is now determined by “belief” not by evidence. Without examining her testimony, without any specifics at all — logic and facts be damned — every opinion is accepted just based on emotional reaction.
How does anyone, the accuser or accused, get a fair hearing under those circumstances?
The concept of innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, has been disappearing with each accusation constantly repeated multiple times in the courtroom of media. Our new judge and jury, truth is determined by the more sensational and politically potent an accusation is, and no amount of correction will undo that.
According to the Constitution the purview of the Senate is to “advise and consent” on SCOTUS appointees. It says nothing about setting IUDs made out of vague and ancient fictions. The determination of suitability of the candidate should be based on the education, clarity, and self-discipline to weigh the issues. SCOTUS can’t initiate lawsuits; they can only rule on what is brought before them.
Ford requested an FBI investigation. The FBI can only do background investigations, investigate possible federal crimes — teenage fondling doesn’t qualify — unless the activity crosses state lines and involves kidnapping.
Is justice possible under this climate of beliefs and unsubstantiated allegations?
