RALPH  KENYON
EXTRAPOLATOR
BACK |

This page was updated by Ralph Kenyon on 2018-09-30 at 01:20 and has been accessed 2087 times at 37 hits per month.

Supreme Court Nomination v Kavanaugh.

Civil and Criminal Law

There are two kinds of law in America, Civil law and criminal law.  Civil law concerns legislation and the relations between people and between people and the administration, as well as between both and corporations, which, unfortunately, in many respects are treated as persons under the law.

The type of events covered include disputes between people - civil, disputes between people and the government and corporations - also civil, violation of legislation made to preserve the welfare and safety of the population and property also civil, but includes criminal.  Disputes between people are resolved by suits, as are petitions for redress to the government under the First Amendment. These are resolved by assessing a redress of damages with a cash penalty for the loser as a compensating benefit to the winner.  Transgressions against the government's need to preserve safety and the general welfare involve two categories, "little" offenses, misdemeanors, usually resolved with a monetary penalty paid to the state, frequently applied by an administrator  (judge or other official) - some of these can be quite large where the offender is a corporation.  Then there are the "big" offenses - felonies, crimes against the state. Tried by a Jury of peers (or "cop a plea" to a judge) which involves big money for corporations and or prison for individuals.

Because we do not want people to lose their fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, the criminal offenses have a high standard to insure the "innocent" are not wrongly convicted of something they did not do.  That standard is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".  Reasonable doubt is sufficient to protect an individual's right to life and liberty - you know, the stuff of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. We'd rather an alleged offender go free than convict someone who actually did not do what they were accused of. It has been said that that risk ratio must be more than 10 to 1.  Let 10 "criminals" go before convicting one "innocent" person.  That standard applies only to felonies committed by individuals and crimes against the state that involve penalties depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property directly or through corporations.

The Civil offenses and disputes, which do not usually result in loss of life or freedom, are subject to a much lower standard.  That standard is expressed as "the preponderance of evidence". The rules of evidence are much tighter for felonies, not so for misdemeanors and disputes.  Administrators, arbitrators, judges, and committees all judge such civil matters that do not primarily involve the lost of life and freedom by applying "the preponderance of evidence" and rules that admit into evidence much more than can be admitted under the higher standard of "innocent until proven guilty"

Judge Kavanaugh

That brings us to the case of Judge Kavanaugh and other Judges.  The criteria for selection is reversed in the sense that the job is so important to the preservation of the rights and freedoms of the citizens, that we want to exclude 10 good candidates rather than to risk admitting even one nefarious one to the bench - at least prior to the politics over country era that we are now in.

The Republicans are trying to sell to the public that the "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard should be used, so they can get a conservative judge on the court that will continue politics over country for decades.  That standard would let the 10 "criminals" have the job, because they would be kept free; they were allowed free on the basis of "reasonable doubt".  We don't want, and can not afford, to choose judges because there was "reasonable doubt" that they did not commit whatever offenses they were accused of. Not guilty does not mean totally innocent; it just means not convicted, because there was some small doubt. We must have virtually NO DOUBT that they are innocent of charges for judges. Judge candidates must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they are innocent.  Reasonable doubt that they were innocent on a 10 to 1 risk ratio is the same as 1 chance of 10 that they are innocent, or nine chances in ten that they might be guilty, but they were allowed to go free on the "reasonable" doubt that they were absolutely guilty. Judges must be more than reasonably doubt from unanimous guilt, they can not be free with a 90% chance of guilt, so that a 10% chance of not guilt makes them free.  A judge must have less that 10% chance of being guilty - more than 90% chance of being innocent. This is much, much, more rigorous criteria than merely 10% chance of being innocent. The preponderance of evidence that a candidate is free of guilt of crime must be significantly more that 51%, it must be more than 90%-95% free of suspicion, because we are entrusting the candidate to protect us from injustice, and anyone who committed any crimes, even those for which they were freed by "reasonable doubt" are likely to see their own offenses as "ok" for others too, thus ultimately disenfranchising the victims. In short, the Republicans are turning the high standard for judges upside down making it a very low standard.  Judges must be super innocent, not just not guilty by reasonable doubt.  There is a wide gap between not guilty by reasonable  doubt and no reasonable suspicion - Not probable cause, but not even possible possible suspicion.  Judges are not supposed to have even just the appearances of possible wrong-doing or conflict of interest, or suspicion.
When someone says a candidate must be excused of claims using beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the lowest possible standard level. When there are accusations, it's equivalent to hiring an unindicted co-conspirator.

Alcohol

Aside from the preponderance of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was a sexual abuser, that Judge Kavanaugh admitted to a history of drinking bears closer scrutiny. The Judge has displayed Trumpian attitudes of entitlement about this nomination - exhibiting no respect for the process or the Senators. My post and comments on social media after watching some of the interview:

Ralph Kenyon: During Judge Kavanaugh's testimony he was hyper, hostile, inconsistent, angry, confused, rambling, argumentative, tried to turn questions back on the questioner, and resulted in the republicans breaking the protocol that was setup by the committee. In short he was a scared angry man attacking the process, the questioners, and the evidence. Arrogant and supremely confident, he didn't even bother to watch Dr. Ford's testimony.

Richard F. Williams: It was a vintage, classic alcoholic defense. The guy needs a psychiatric doctor and AA membership.

Ralph Kenyon: Richard F. Williams, Right on! I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Administrator at two commands in the Navy, but I didn't see it. You're absolutely right.  He sounded like a dry drunk, now that you mentioned it. Good job!

Richard F. Williams: Thanks. Yes, it's all there -- denial, rationalizing, diversion, egotism, memory loss, blubbering sentimentality, lying... It could be used as a training video for Drug/Alcohol Abuse counselors. An innocent person might be upset at being wrongly accused, but none of that other behavior would be seen in a person comfortable with his own innocence. He's embarrassed, and he got caught too late.

Remember, that job performance is the last to go for alcoholism, and family members are generally co-dependent enablers, who will conceal and downplay any issues. If he has ever been even a fraction as belligerent at his workplaces, he would have struck fear into his employees and coworkers. Nobody would dare cross him by not writing glowing praise at his request for support. His behavior in the nomination interview alone is sufficient for him not to be selected for a lifetime on the Supreme Court.  Alcoholism is a subtle and insidious progressive disease based on inappropriate coping strategy.  It clouds judgment progressively, moving the victim towards stereotypical generalizations of projected blame.  With Kavanaugh's stupidity in attacking the committee, showing rage, and false logic shows he is already exhibiting the symptoms.

Gender and Sex and Logic

It's arrogance to believe that oneself is free from the deleterious effects of alcohol that one can actually believe that one can always remember everything done under the influence. Medical knowledge puts the lie to such a claim. Even if one did have a black out, to say that because one does not remember doing something that it did not happen is a logical fallacy. That kind of fallacious logic does not belong in the courthouse.  To say that what happens at X stays at X creates an island of lawlessness that establishes a double standard that spills out in the rest of the thinking, including the generalization that if one can do it there, then why not elsewhere?  It also breeds disrespect for law and an attitude of privilege.  That includes breaking the rules of behavior towards women.  That arrogance and disrespect was clearly shown during the interview. Just as he believed he was entitled to take what he wanted from women, he now believes he is entitled to the appointment, and his rage at the prospect of not getting it now was clearly shown.

Judgment

Not only should he NOT be given a seat on the SCOTUS, he should he should probably be impeached from his current judgeship.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford would make a better SCOTUS Justice. There have been 40 justices without prior judicial experience before becoming a SCOTUS justice.  How about a nice medical psychologist with absolutely no political partisanship?



Ralph E Kenyon Jr.
191 White Oaks Road
Williamstown, MA 01267