Kavanaugh--burden of proof in a dispute

1)        9-21-18

  Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, averred that “this is no country for denying people due process.”…

   Whether or not there’s conclusive proof of the alleged assault, every senator is entitled to vote yes or no on elevating Kavanaugh from his current position as a federal appeals court judge to the pinnacle of American law based on their individual, subjective assessments of whatever testimony is provided.  Senators also, properly, weigh their constituents’ views on the nominee and the testimony.   Even if senators aren’t sure what, if anything, happened between Ford and Kavanaugh, if they think the accusation is probable, or even plausible, and decide that it’s too great a risk to put a maybe-sexual-assaulter on the high court, they’re entitled to vote no.  If they believe that Kavanaugh lied under oath in answers to written or oral questions related to any part of the confirmation process, they’re entitled to vote no. …

  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.”         -Prof. of Law Caprice Roberts   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.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.46832b4180a2

……………………………………………….............................................................

2)       Posted by: Anon | Sep 22, 2018 9:54:12 PM

First, the standard of proof, is general standard.  Typically, the nature of the tribunal or even the circumstances surrounding it, don't really matter. …what it is meant for (by the burden of proof).  So, a person, wouldn't fool around, with senseless and baseless allegations.  It does corrupt systems, and public hygiene.  …the so called, political court (apparently, but let us assume so) is anyway a given in the US, but reversing the burden of proof, and creating such moral or immoral chaos, in so badly divided nation as the US has become recently, is no less a real danger.

Thanks     http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2018/09/kavanaugh-and-the-burden-of-proof.html

…………………………………………………………………...............................……

3)       The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.  It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is:  "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.”^[2]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

^{………………………………………………………............}

^{4)    II, iv, 3.}  

Christ said:  "Not in a temple, but in spirit shalt thou pray."  Verily religious prejudice is the worst vulgarity.  Often even religious ecstasies result in more harm than good.  Out of them the crowd has made a vulgar spectacle.         -Leaves of Morya's Garden 1925