In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that “the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.
The above are the gold standard cases for the presumption of innocence. These along with the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments are the back bone of our freedoms in the context of the legal rights we posses. In fact in order that we might live in a free Republic it is an absolute necessity that we are presumed innocent and must be afforded a fair trial. We are watching the progressive Marxist Democratic party show their true colors. This is a repeat of the continued abuse of power that we are seeing exposed in the on going “Russia Investigation” based on a illegal FISA warrant obtained on lies and deception and which victimized an American citizen who was presumed guilty and not innocent. Marx prescribed to arbitrary law which would be used by those in power to destroy their political and ideological foes. Our Republic stands on the Rule of Law and Natures Law as identified by a standard found in the biblical canon and created by God. As Frnaklin so famously said, “A Republic so long as you can keep it”
– Pastor Greg Young
By Rich Lowry
When our system of justice is at its best, it judges each individual — the accuser and the accused — fairly, on the basis of the evidence, and with an adversarial process that has proved over the centuries the best way to ascertain the truth.
Ford’s charge is serious by any standard, and despite the shameful way it was handled — Dianne Feinstein sat on it for weeks, until it leaked out at the 11th hour — Republicans appropriately agreed to delay a committee vote and hear from both Ford and Kavanaugh at an open hearing.
The problem is that Ford’s accusation doesn’t seem particularly provable — an alleged incident 36 years ago, with few details to check against — and the Democratic media isn’t very interested in proving it. It wants to take Ford’s truthfulness as a given, as matter of cosmic and gender equity.
“I believe the survivor,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) says of Ford. It would be accurate for him to say, “I believe she is a survivor,” since we don’t know the truth of her allegation. But the point here is to take rhetorical and political advantage of her alleged victimhood before it’s been established — indeed to use her assumed victimhood to foreclose any serious questioning of whether she is a victim.
What we’re seeing, in effect, is the importation of the infamous kangaroo-court apparatus for adjudicating sexual-harassment and assault cases from college campuses — which often denies the accused basic protections of due process — to the US Senate.
Without having any independent knowledge of whether Ford’s account of Brett Kavanaugh allegedly attempting to rape her is true, Blumenthal is still a hanging judge: “This nomination will not only cast a shadow over Judge Kavanaugh, if he were ever to be confirmed, it will also stain the United States Supreme Court irreparably.”
The court weathered Roger Taney and Dred Scott, but will be brought to ruination by Brett Kavanaugh.
If we aren’t going to simply assume Kavanaugh’s guilt, we have to be willing to challenge Ford’s account, and ask questions about it.
But we’re told this is risky, or even out of bounds.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) noted Ford’s fuzzy memory of key details, and concluded, “There are some gaps there that need to be filled.” Chris Cilliza of CNN deemed these kind of queries “walking a VERY dangerous line,” although they are obviously central to testing the accuracy of Ford’s account.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pronounced, “By refusing to treat her allegations properly” — her otherworldly description of an invitation to Ford to testify in an open or closed setting — “and by playing games to protect Kavanaugh’s nomination, they’re telling women across the country that they’re not to be believed. That they are worth less than a man’s promotion.”
No, that’s not what they’re telling women, or anyone else. The message is that they’ll try to find the truth before crediting an accusation.
This once was a tenet of liberalism, back in the day when it celebrated the Arthur Miller play “The Crucible” and supported the old-school ACLU. Now, “liberal” means something different: braying for collective justice, regardless of the evidence, to right historic wrongs.
ABC News commentator Matthew Dowd opined, “If this is ‘he said, she said,’ then let’s believe that ‘she’ in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the ‘he’ in these scenarios. Enough is enough.”
Putting aside the tendentious history, this is a call for people to subordinate their reason and moral discernment to a social and political agenda. Not all women are to believed, whatever the past sins of the patriarchy.
The Duke lacrosse players weren’t guilty. The UVA fraternity story wasn’t true. Mattress Girl, the Columbia University student who carried a mattress around as a symbol of her alleged rape, falsely accused her supposed assailant.
This obviously doesn’t mean all women should be disbelieved, either. Almost all of the #MeToo allegations against high-profile figures in Hollywood and the media have been credible. It does mean accusations of sexual misconduct — like any other accusation — should be evaluated case-by-case, and on the basis of the evidence. This isn’t victimizing the accusers, it is serving the cause of justice.
Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii captured the current temper of the left when she said, “I want to say to the men of this country: Shut up and just step up and do the right thing.”
This says much more about her — and her own suitability for high office — than Kavanaugh. He has no obligation to shut up — even if about half his Senate audience is losing its interest in due process or fair play.