WAPO" Kavanaugh's Senate hearing isn't a trial. The standard isn't 'reasonable doubt.'

[ehrnst]

The confirmation process, including sexual assault allegations, is a job interview.
....................................................

Any forthcoming testimony will occur as part of the confirmation hearing pursuant to Congress’s constitutional role. Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, the president has the power to “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint .?.?. judges of the Supreme Court.” Normally, senators exercise this authority by delegating to the Judiciary Committee the task of conducting hearings. The committee then votes to forward the nominee for consideration by the whole Senate, where a majority vote is needed for confirmation.

Unlike for a jury, there’s no requirement for unanimity, and the Constitution doesn’t set a standard of proof by which senators must offer their advice and consent. It’s why there was, effectively, nothing President Barack Obama could do when Republican senators chose not to vote on his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the late justice Antonin Scalia’s high court seat in 2016 . Some argued that denying a hearing was a failure of constitutional obligation, resulting in a breaking of norms and a “stolen” seat; others maintained, as Michael D. Ramsey put it in the Atlantic, that “the appointments clause does not impose a duty to take formal action,” given that senators were aware of the nomination and thus considered it.

Kavanaugh’s public hearings, then, and any inquiry now into the accusations against him, are less like a trial and more like a high-stakes job interview — and this job comes with life tenure. The main point of the hearings is to determine the nominee’s fitness for the post. Senators evaluate judicial qualifications, record, demeanor and philosophy. Modern judicial nominees undergo in­cred­ibly thorough vetting in preparation because they know that senators may also explore every aspect of their past. Allegations of sexual misconduct fall well within the scope of relevant considerations. Because guilt or innocence isn’t the issue, but instead fitness for the Supreme Court, the burden of proof isn’t, and shouldn’t be, on Ford, the accuser; it remains on Kavanaugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaughs-senate-hearing-isnt-a-trial-the-standard-isnt-reasonable-doubt/2018/09/20/1eb1ee34-bd15-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.htm

[Iliyah]

1. All GOPers on the committee have already decided to vote for Kavanuagh.

Doesn't matter what he did in the past and present. They don't care. All they see is a justice system that favors the powerful and rich.