| |
|---|---|
There are two kinds of law in America, Civil law and criminal
law. Civil law concerns legislation and the relations between
people and between people and the administration, as well as between
both and corporations, which, unfortunately, in many respects are treated
as persons under the law.
The type of events covered include disputes between people - civil, disputes
between people and the government and corporations - also civil,
violation of legislation made to preserve the welfare and safety of the
population and property also civil, but includes criminal.
Disputes between people are resolved by suits, as are petitions for
redress to the government under the First Amendment. These are resolved
by assessing a redress of damages with a cash penalty for the loser as a
compensating benefit to the winner. Transgressions against the government's
need to preserve safety and the general welfare involve two categories,
"little" offenses, misdemeanors, usually resolved with a monetary
penalty paid to the state, frequently applied by an administrator
(judge or other official) - some of these can be quite large where the
offender is a corporation. Then there are the "big" offenses -
felonies, crimes against the state. Tried by a Jury of peers (or "cop a
plea" to a judge) which involves big money for corporations and or
prison for individuals.
Because we do not want people to lose their fundamental right to
life, liberty, and property, the criminal offenses have a high standard
to insure the "innocent" are not wrongly convicted of something they
did not do. That standard is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt is sufficient to protect an
individual's right to life and liberty - you know, the stuff of the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
of the United States.
We'd rather an alleged offender go free than convict someone who
actually did not do what they were accused of. It has been said that
that risk ratio must be more than 10 to 1. Let 10 "criminals" go
before convicting one "innocent" person. That standard applies
only to felonies committed by individuals and crimes against the state
that involve penalties depriving individuals of life, liberty, and
property directly or through corporations.
The Civil offenses and disputes, which do not usually result in loss
of life or freedom, are subject to a much lower standard. That
standard is expressed as "the preponderance of evidence". The rules of
evidence are much tighter for felonies, not so for misdemeanors and
disputes. Administrators, arbitrators, judges, and committees all
judge such civil matters that do not primarily involve the lost of life
and freedom by applying "the preponderance of evidence" and rules that
admit into evidence much more than can be admitted under the higher
standard of "innocent until proven guilty"
That brings us to the case of Judge Kavanaugh and other Judges.
The criteria for selection is reversed in the sense that the job is so
important to the preservation of the rights and freedoms of the
citizens, that we want to exclude 10 good candidates rather than to risk
admitting even one nefarious one to the bench - at least prior to the politics over country era that we are now in.
The Republicans are trying to sell to the public that the "innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard should be
used, so they can get a conservative judge on the court that will
continue politics over country for decades.
That standard would let the 10 "criminals" have the job, because they
would be kept free; they were allowed free on the basis of
"reasonable doubt". We don't want, and can not afford, to choose
judges because there was "reasonable doubt" that they did not commit
whatever offenses they were accused of. Not guilty does not mean totally
innocent; it just means not convicted, because there was some small
doubt. We
must have virtually NO DOUBT that they are innocent
of charges for judges. Judge candidates must be proved beyond any
reasonable doubt
that they are
innocent. Reasonable doubt that they were innocent on a 10 to 1
risk ratio is the same as 1 chance of 10 that they are innocent, or
nine chances in ten that they might be guilty, but they were allowed to
go free on the "reasonable" doubt that they were absolutely guilty.
Judges must be more than reasonably doubt from unanimous guilt, they can
not be free with a 90% chance of guilt, so that a 10% chance of not
guilt makes
them free. A judge must have less that 10% chance of being guilty
- more than 90% chance of being innocent. This is much, much,
more rigorous criteria than merely 10% chance of being
innocent. The preponderance of evidence that a candidate is free of
guilt of crime must be significantly more that 51%, it must be more than
90%-95% free of suspicion, because we are entrusting the candidate to
protect us from injustice, and anyone who committed any crimes, even
those for which they were freed by "reasonable doubt" are likely to see
their own offenses as "ok" for others too, thus ultimately
disenfranchising the victims. In short, the Republicans are turning the
high standard for judges upside down making it a very low
standard. Judges must be super innocent, not just not guilty by
reasonable doubt. There is a wide gap between not guilty by
reasonable doubt and no reasonable suspicion - Not probable cause,
but not even possible possible suspicion. Judges are not supposed
to have even just the appearances of possible wrong-doing or conflict
of interest, or suspicion.
When someone says a candidate must be excused of claims using beyond a
reasonable doubt, that is the lowest possible standard level. When there
are accusations, it's equivalent to hiring an unindicted
co-conspirator.
Aside from the preponderance of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was a
sexual abuser, that Judge Kavanaugh admitted to a history of drinking
bears
closer scrutiny. The Judge has displayed
Trumpian attitudes of entitlement about this nomination - exhibiting no
respect for the process or the Senators. My post and comments on social
media after watching some of the interview:
Ralph Kenyon: During Judge Kavanaugh's testimony he was hyper, hostile, inconsistent, angry, confused, rambling, argumentative, tried to turn questions back on the questioner, and resulted in the republicans breaking the protocol that was setup by the committee. In short he was a scared angry man attacking the process, the questioners, and the evidence. Arrogant and supremely confident, he didn't even bother to watch Dr. Ford's testimony.
Richard F. Williams: It was a vintage, classic alcoholic defense. The guy needs a psychiatric doctor and AA membership.
Ralph Kenyon: Richard F. Williams, Right on! I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Administrator at two commands in the Navy, but I didn't see it. You're absolutely right. He sounded like a dry drunk, now that you mentioned it. Good job!
Richard F. Williams: Thanks. Yes, it's all there -- denial, rationalizing, diversion, egotism, memory loss, blubbering sentimentality, lying... It could be used as a training video for Drug/Alcohol Abuse counselors. An innocent person might be upset at being wrongly accused, but none of that other behavior would be seen in a person comfortable with his own innocence. He's embarrassed, and he got caught too late.
Remember, that job performance is the last to go
for alcoholism, and family members are generally co-dependent enablers,
who will conceal and downplay any issues. If he has ever been even a
fraction as belligerent at his workplaces, he would have struck fear
into his employees and coworkers. Nobody would dare cross him by not
writing glowing praise at his request for support. His behavior in the
nomination interview alone is sufficient for him not to be selected for a
lifetime on the Supreme Court. Alcoholism is a subtle and
insidious progressive disease based on inappropriate coping
strategy. It clouds judgment progressively, moving the victim
towards stereotypical generalizations of projected blame. With
Kavanaugh's stupidity in attacking the committee, showing rage, and
false logic shows he is already exhibiting the symptoms.
It's arrogance to believe that oneself is free from the deleterious
effects of alcohol that one can actually believe that one can always
remember everything done under the influence. Medical knowledge puts the
lie to such a claim. Even if one did have a black out, to say that
because one does not remember doing something that it did not happen is a
logical fallacy. That kind of fallacious logic does not belong in the
courthouse. To say that what happens at X stays at X creates an
island of lawlessness that establishes a double standard that spills out
in the rest of the thinking, including the generalization that if one can do
it there, then why not elsewhere? It also breeds disrespect for
law and an attitude of privilege. That includes breaking the
rules of behavior towards women. That arrogance and disrespect was
clearly shown during the interview. Just as he believed he was entitled
to take what he wanted from women, he now believes he is entitled to
the appointment, and his rage at the prospect of not getting it now was
clearly shown.
Not only should he NOT be given a seat on the SCOTUS, he should he should probably be impeached from his current judgeship.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford would make a better SCOTUS Justice. There have
been 40 justices without prior judicial experience before becoming a
SCOTUS justice. How about a nice medical psychologist with absolutely no political partisanship?