Thread by @RespectableLaw

A thread about Kavanaugh and how we should be talking about the burden of proof.

I've heard the GOP saying he is presumed innocent and should be confirmed unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I want to explain why this is insane, and why the opposite is true.

Public faith in the integrity of the judiciary is more important than Brett Kavanaugh's reputation.

It is an elementary principle of American judicial ethics that judges must not only be free from impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety.

Respect for judicial decisions -- and indeed the very foundations of civil authority -- depend in large measure on a lack of public doubt about their fairness, bias, or virtue.

In short, the American people are entitled to know 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭 that a lifetime appointee to the highest instrument of law is not a liar with a history of being a disgusting sex pest.

And so I'm not saying every allegation is disqualifying, but if a substantial number of fair-minded people have doubts about the appointee's integrity, they should be withdrawn.

There are literally thousands of people who could competently fill the role and who are also free from significant public doubt about their integrity.

At this point, to support Kavanaugh is to support the idea that it's fine and healthy for a substantial portion of America to have reasonable doubts about the fitness and honesty of a Supreme Court Justice.

And you may disagree the standard should be quite that high. Maybe you want something higher, like "probable cause." And I think that's fair. But the idea that Kavanaugh must be proven guilty, or even beyond a preponderance of the evidence, is just insane.

But in the end, this "burden of proof" stuff should be academic lawyer talk. Because that guy lied to our faces.

Devil's Triangle is not a drinking game.
Boofed is not farting.

He lied. I know it. You know it. They know it. Dogs know it.