Democrats have abandoned the presumption of innocence

Spread the love

Loading

Christine Blasey Ford deserves a hearing, although at the moment she doesn’t seem to want one. What she doesn’t deserve is to be believed automatically because she’s a woman making an accusation.

When our system of justice is at its best, it judges each individual — the accuser and the accused — fairly, on the basis of the evidence, and with an adversarial process that has proved over the centuries the best way to ascertain the truth.



Ford’s charge is serious by any standard, and despite the shameful way it was handled — Dianne Feinstein sat on it for weeks, until it leaked out at the 11th hour — Republicans appropriately agreed to delay a committee vote and hear from both Ford and Kavanaugh at an open hearing.

The problem is that Ford’s accusation doesn’t seem particularly provable — an alleged incident 36 years ago, with few details to check against — and the Democratic media isn’t very interested in proving it. It wants to take Ford’s truthfulness as a given, as matter of cosmic and gender equity.

“I believe the survivor,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) says of Ford. It would be accurate for him to say, “I believe she is a survivor,” since we don’t know the truth of her allegation. But the point here is to take rhetorical and political advantage of her alleged victimhood before it’s been established — indeed to use her assumed victimhood to foreclose any serious questioning of whether she is a victim.

What we’re seeing, in effect, is the importation of the infamous kangaroo-court apparatus for adjudicating sexual-harassment and assault cases from college campuses — which often denies the accused basic protections of due process — to the US Senate.

Without having any independent knowledge of whether Ford’s account of Brett Kavanaugh allegedly attempting to rape her is true, Blumenthal is still a hanging judge: “This nomination will not only cast a shadow over Judge Kavanaugh, if he were ever to be confirmed, it will also stain the United States Supreme Court irreparably.”

The court weathered Roger Taney and Dred Scott, but will be brought to ruination by Brett Kavanaugh.

If we aren’t going to simply assume Kavanaugh’s guilt, we have to be willing to challenge Ford’s account, and ask questions about it.

But we’re told this is risky, or even out of bounds.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) noted Ford’s fuzzy memory of key details, and concluded, “There are some gaps there that need to be filled.” Chris Cilliza of CNN deemed these kind of queries “walking a VERY dangerous line,” although they are obviously central to testing the accuracy of Ford’s account.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pronounced, “By refusing to treat her allegations properly” — her otherworldly description of an invitation to Ford to testify in an open or closed setting — “and by playing games to protect Kavanaugh’s nomination, they’re telling women across the country that they’re not to be believed. That they are worth less than a man’s promotion.”

No, that’s not what they’re telling women, or anyone else. The message is that they’ll try to find the truth before crediting an accusation.

This once was a tenet of liberalism, back in the day when it celebrated the Arthur Miller play “The Crucible” and supported the old-school ACLU. Now, “liberal” means something different: braying for collective justice, regardless of the evidence, to right historic wrongs.

ABC News commentator Matthew Dowd opined, “If this is ‘he said, she said,’ then let’s believe that ‘she’ in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the ‘he’ in these scenarios. Enough is enough.”

Putting aside the tendentious history, this is a call for people to subordinate their reason and moral discernment to a social and political agenda. Not all women are to believed, whatever the past sins of the patriarchy.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ABC News commentator Matthew Dowd opined, “If this is ‘he said, she said,’ then let’s believe that ‘she’ in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the ‘he’ in these scenarios. Enough is enough.”

Sometimes with Hillary’s assistance.

This obviously doesn’t mean all women should be disbelieved, either.

Absolutely not. But the Democrat belief that if the accusation is made against a Republican it should be believed but if made against a Democrat, it should be suppressed makes them ALL suspect and does a gross disservice to women that have victimized.

Women making such accusations deserve the benefit of the doubt, but when the accusations are nothing more than, “He did it, now leave me alone and ask me no questions.” it is more than reasonable to expect further details before condemning anyone to guilt.

But, that’s just how people who don’t view such accusations as political toys think… not liberals.