I'm sick of hearing that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

[ashling]

That would be true if this were a criminal proceeding in court. In that case the burden of proof would be beyond a reasonable doubt and (depending on the jurisdiction) to a moral certainty. In a civil court case for damages the burden would be a presumption of the evidence.

But this is neither. So none of that applies.

Now I am not arguing here that the burden of proof should be something else. I am arguing that he should, in fact, be entitled to a presumption of innocence before the court. Not in regard to the nomination, but

in fact that he should be brought up on criminal charges in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The Blassey-Ford allegation was deemed by many to be a credible allegation. There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.

And yet I don't hear anybody else calling for that.

Am I wrong?

[IluvPitties]

1. Someone of dubious character should not be a SC judge.

[cyclonefence]

2. They want to have it both ways

He's entitled to a presumption of innocence *and* it's not a trial. He's not "entitled" to anything with regard to his innocence or guilt. He's been accused of wrongdoing, and it's up to him to respond. His accuser is certainly believable, while he acts like a guilty man. He is apparently not aware of how bad he looks.

[smirkymonkey]

5. +1000

[msongs]

3. its a fine point but unless the alleged victim files a complaint there will be no charges nt

[Blue_true]

4. Yeah, me too.

I save my demands for fairness for people that deserve it. He doesn't.