In America, Sundays are famous (or infamous, if you prefer ...) for the all of the "talking heads" discussing the past week's news events. This past week was different. Arguably a "watershed" moment in American history. What?
I am talking about the ongoing U. S. Senate confirmations hearing for Brett Kavanaugh to become the latest Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. The Sunday talk show highlight being the drama of this past Thursday's testimony of the two principals - Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ...
I want to talk about a key aspect of the unfolding drama in this post.
All of the details aside, at the heart of these hearings is an unprecedented attempt to turn the subject of this post upside down. At the foundation of our system of justice is the following premise:
As an essential corollary, the burden of this proof rests on a person's accuser, as we have the "presumption of innocence," until then. A historic effort is currently underway to turn this upside down!
I am going to briefly go through some "basics," before I get to the main point of my post:
The Constitution of the United States is one of the great documents in history establishing our American form of government and its fundamental laws, which guarantee certain basic rights for its citizens.
An essential part of it was the creation of three co-equal branches of government - the executive (President), the legislative (the House and Senate), and the judicial (Supreme Court) branches.
The President has nominated a person, Brett Kavanaugh, to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. As part of this process, the U. S. Senate must have a majority vote in favor of his nomination, before he will be seated.
This American would argue this is no greater responsibility our government has than to protect the safety and security of its citizens. Full stop. Period!
Aside from protection against the military invasion of a foreign adversary, can it be argued there is anything more basic to these fundamental responsibilities than our system of justice? I don't think so ...
The most sacred principle of the American justice system is presumption of innocence - that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. I am no legal scholar, but I believe there are at least two essential components to this:
Due Process of Law
The Burden of Proof
The 5th amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees "due process of law" to all persons. This requires orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt. These orderly legal procedures ensure, among other things, a fair and impartial trial is held and a verdict reached, on innocence or guilt, by a jury of a person's peers.
In these trials, as one of their constitutional rights, the presumed innocent person need say absolutely nothing, if they deem that to be in their best interest.
The 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution covers "equal protection under the law," so there can be no doubt as to the fact all Americans are "under the law." Never above it!
In the required orderly legal proceeding, i.e. the trial, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, a person's guilt. As an obviously adversarial proceeding, the prosecution is the side that bears the burden of proof of providing evidence of guilt.
Otherwise, the accused is innocent and remains free from being "deprived of life, liberty, and property."
In spite of the best efforts of his political adversaries, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was moving towards confirmation. Until ... What?
A politically explosive charge was leveled at him of sexual misconduct. Initially based on a "secret letter" from an anonymous source, it eventually culminated in a person stepping forward to become Kavanaugh's primary accuser - Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
It is not my intent to go into the details of the accuser's charges. For the subject of this post, I propose the following outline of what one U. S. Senator has called, "an intergalactic freak show", in what has unfolded before the American people:
There is hardly a more emotionally explosive accusation one can make against another, than for a woman to accuse a man of sexual misconduct, up to and including, rape.
The now famously cited incident allegedly took place about 36 years ago. At a time and in a location the accuser can't recall. While both parties were in high school.
She can recall some of the people who might be familiar with the incident. They have all provided legal documents, punishable by a felony charge if proven to be false, saying they know nothing about the incident.
The defendant swears he is innocent and would never do such a thing. Many, many people, both men and women, have come forward to testify that from childhood forward to the present, they cannot imagine the man they know and have always known could be guilty of such a charge.
As serious as the charge is, almost everyone agrees it is simply not possible for there ever to be a formal legal proceeding, as required to establish guilt. Every prosecutor, on both sides of the political "divide," has said they would not attempt it. They have no thought they could prevail in providing the required burden of proof, to establish guilt.
Further, aside from "burden of proof" evidence, no corroborating evidence has come to light, in spite of extensive efforts to produce it. Surely, then, by all reasonable standards, Brett Kavanaugh is innocent. Right?
No!! At least, not "in the court of public opinion," for far too many of my fellow Americans. Driven not by unbiased facts, presented in "an orderly legal proceeding," but instead by the every-growing flames of passion, burning out of control in public.
Instead, we have now before us, the following:
A loud and growing "chorus" of activists insisting Kavanaugh must be guilty, simply on the basis of a woman's allegation. No legal proceeding to protect him. No evidence to convict him. Just her accusation is sufficient ...
At least one sitting U. S. Senator publicly stating Kavanaugh needs to "prove" his innocence!
Kavanaugh's powerful testimony of the damage being done to him and his family by this process and calling into question why anyone, in the future, would ever be willing to endure it, if allowed to stand.
At least one sitting U. S. Representative publicly stating, if Kavanaugh somehow still manages to obtain confirmation, he will lead the effort to have him impeached! Why? Because, of course, he must be guilty!
What we are witnessing is a deliberate attempt to destroy a man, by whatever means necessary, to obtain a political objective.
How have we come to this place in American history? Of great concern to this American, isn't that people are attempting to turn our justice system upside down. It is the fact they are even remotely close to being successful!
And should they be successful, what do you think the future holds for you? Would you like to say, perhaps, "Well, at least I am on the 'right' side of this issue?" Really? I respectfully suggest you think again.
"Opening this door" has unknown consequences, but it is unimaginable they can be deemed to be good over time. Who will control the "mob rule" to which you have now acquiesced?
In your "favor" today? Who will control these passions the next time, as "gasoline" is poured on "the fire" of "burning down" whatever is deemed to be in the way of "progress" tomorrow?
Will it still be in your favor? Or will you now be subject to the flames and "burned to the ground," as those who have been victims of this new form of "justice" before you?
Perhaps a powerful voice, from the past, will be of some benefit to, as you reflect on these questions for yourself and those whom you hold dear.
The following quote is based on the author's perception of the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Pastor Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor, an outspoken foe of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany:
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist""Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist""Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist""Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew""Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me."
Yes, yes, dear reader, I am well aware this context does not match the focus of this post. Or does it?
In the broader context of tyrannical rule, I personally believe it does:
"Cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
What does America's future hold, with ever bolder and stronger attempts being made to overturn a fundamental part of what protects us all - our system of justice?
Would you like to simply argue, "Well, it doesn't affect me, so ..." Exactly. And the reason I presented you with the quote above.
Maybe "today" it doesn't affect you. Yet. What about tomorrow?
As Americans, "we the people" still ultimately hold the power to elect our representatives. Note well I did not say leaders. I said representatives.
"We the people" will vote early in November, on who will represent us, in the future. Will we allow what has and is taking place to pass, without consequence to those responsible for it?
We don't have long to wait to find out the answer. God help us come up with the right one, in sufficient numbers, to send a resounding and powerful message of rebuke to those who would actively work to destroy the foundation of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty!
Respectfully,
Steemian 
Posted using Busy.org and “immutably enshrined in the blockchain” on Sunday, 30 September 2018!
This account is protected by 
