What there’s to be said about Kavanaugh


WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 27: Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill September 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. Kavanaugh was called back to testify about claims by Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Matthew Gearhart, Opinions Editor

As many are knowledgeable of, Brett Kavanaugh was recently appointed as one of eight Supreme Court Justices within the Judiciary Branch of our government. And the process of appointing him  became the most openly bitter, contentious debate between Democrats and Republicans. Due to the sprouted allegations of sexual assault Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of. It’s a sensitive subject. And this opinion story is not to say he is guilty or not, it is instead to take a more bipartisan opinion on the circumstance at hand.

What is true is that according to a Senate Judiciary Committee synopsis, the FBI’s October investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh didn’t find any evidence to substantiate the claims of sexual assault. Although, what is untrue is all or any of the allegations were determined false as a conclusion. This is exactly what should be evaluated.

In a democracy, especially the U.S., one is innocent until proven guilty under the court of law in all circumstances. Meaning the individuals who are legally guilty of a crime has to be proven guilty first and foremost. This law is structured to avoid government tyranny against the people. Because in the case of guilty until proven innocent, someone who is innocent could be arrested and detained without personal freedom, forced to defend themselves in every case.

This is contextualized in the instance of Kavanaugh, so many were advocating for denial of appointment to supreme court justice, or detainment for arrest. This is pathologically avoiding the entire legal philosophy used in the U.S., and is inherently tyrannical. Because we didn’t know and still don’t know if he’s guilty. Therefore, we should determine him as innocent, until we have the substantial proof of his guilt.

On the other hand, the FBI investigation wasn’t very thorough. It was cut short of time and witnesses. Not to mention that the investigation wasn’t standard criminal inquiry, not much was added to his background. It doesn’t matter whether you’re an elite politician or an ordinary citizen. Criminal investigations should all be treated with the same substantial amount of inquiry.