Confusing Court Rooms With Advise and Consent

THE TACTIC being used by the right wing, which desperately wants a conservative justice on the Supreme Court rather than a moderate one who would render justice without regard to personal political ideology, is that Brett Kavanaugh is innocent of any sexual misconduct while in high school over thirty years ago, because in the American system of jurisprudence we are all guaranteed the presumption of innocence, and the judge has not been proven guilty, and, well, after all, the alleged incident happened over thirty years ago, and is therefore irrelevant, and should be relegated to the category of "youthful indiscretion". Both these arguments are absolutely spurious, and are indications of how far below the level of any reasonable standard of moral turpitude America's conservative community has fallen. Kavanaugh is not being tried in a court of law. He is being scrutinized for suitability for membership on the nation's highest court. Therefore the idea of presumption of innocence does not apply. What apples is the principle that the entirely of a person's life is relevant material in carrying out the constitutionally mandated process of advise and consent, because what we do at any stage of our lives is revelatory of character. We would most certainly not want a person to be on the Supreme Court who has a history of mental illness, or a felony conviction, no matter how long ago the conviction was registered. Hardly anyone, on a percentage basis, is ever accused of attempting to rape a woman, either immediately after the alleged attempt, or years after. Well over ninety nine percent of the nation's high school students, well over ninety nine percent of the nation's men are never accused of sexual misconduct, notwithstanding the fact that those who are receive a disproportionate amount of attention, appropriately so, and notwithstanding the fact that a rather high percentage of men engage in some form of sexual misconduct at some point in their lives, even if such misconduct consists only of minor infractions, such as looking up a woman's skirt, window peeping, kiss staling, and so forth. Anyone who have ever been accused of any sort of sexual misconduct is probably guilty of it, notwithstanding any rules of evidence, because the very act of making such an accusation is so traumatic to any woman that it is a demonstrated fact that only very rarely do woman fabricate such allegations for any reason, financial, or otherwise. Only a small percentage of women one forth wit accusations against men, even a high percentage of them are indeed mistreated, usually by husbands. Most misdeeds against women are never reported for various reasons, usually having to do with a preference to move on and let the past vanish, or a sense of humiliation and a fear of personal scrutiny, or publicity. whenever a spurious accusation is levied, it is serious business, and almost certainly has a basis in fact. The mere fact that the professor who is making accusations against judge Kavanaugh provably underwent therapy years ago , confined the event to her husband years ago, and was indeed in the location at the time she claims the incident to have occurred years ago, and has absolutely nothing to gain by coming forth now, other than death threats and misery, all combines to create an extreme probability that her accusation is true. this, not with standing the attempt by America's conservative to use irrelevant arguments to discredit the highly credible woman. But what else might we expect form the right wing, other than a consistent corruption, and the defense of corruption for political gain?