The double standard that exists in the court system

It’s hard to watch the newly surfaced drama surrounding Justice Brett Kavanugh in light of Deborah Ramierz’s recent accusations.

The battle surrounding Kavanaugh is not an anomaly, this has all happened before. What most people seem to forget when discussing the allegations against Kavanaugh is the equally bitter nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas.

To quote The New York Times, “Ms. Hill, who was then 35, first testified before the committee on Oct. 11, 1991. Speaking in a calm, even tone, she detailed her accusations of sexual harassment by Judge Thomas, who oversaw her work at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

There were heart wrenching testimonies, massive protests, an FBI investigation and multiple accusers.

Therefore, Kavanaugh was not the first contentious Supreme Court nomination that dealt with accusations of sexual assault. No matter the person looking for confirmation to the bench and no matter the accuser, the public will pick a side and stick with it.

That’s why in these cases, due process of law is so important. People will smear the name of the accused or the accuser before all evidence is available.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at the facts of Kavanaugh’s case and assess why there is such a gray area.

One major problem with Christine Blasey Ford’s, Ph.D., allegations against Kavanaugh is the fact that the other person she claims was with her that night, Leland Keyser, has sworn under oath that nothing ever happened.

Keyser was close friends with Blasey Ford in high school and often drove Blasey Ford to parties since she was older than Blasey Ford, which is exactly why these allegations came as such a shock to Keyser. Blasey Ford had never once mentioned the allegations to her, much less said that Keyser was there when it happened.

Keyser even faced pressure from Blasey Ford’s legal team and friends to change her mind, but she still swore that nothing ever happened. This evidence comes from the same book by New York Times reporters Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin that is used to support Ramirez’s accusations.

So now to Ramirez’s allegations. Were there actually seven people who can corroborate her separate claims? No. As the Washington Examiner explains, “Of those seven, only one even claims to have heard that Kavanaugh was the person in the story at the time…And even he is only a third-hand source of information, not having actually been there himself, and having heard it from a source whose identity he does not disclose.”

Ramirez has the same problem Blasey Ford had with Keyser: all eye witnesses she names deny her allegations. She named David White, Dan Murphy, Kevin Genda, and David Todd all as witnessing the alleged incident. They all deny this: “We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett.”

So what have we learned here? This whole debate continuing over Justice Kavanaugh is the classic he said, she said. In fact, most of the evidence is simply rumor and hearsay from third party sources. That is why there is so much gray area in this debate, and people tend to then pick a side before having all of the facts.

We all understand that we are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the U.S. court system. Kavanaugh probably understands that better than anyone.

But in the court of public opinion, it would seem that you will forever have your name smeared with the association of rape unless you can prove everyone false. Due process of law and the presumption of innocence seem to be unimportant when we make our daily judgments and accusations.

I think Justice Kavanaugh had every right to act how he did in his Senate hearing.

In fact, I’d be really bothered if he didn’t react in horror and be upset when accused of something as terrible as sexual assault. The whole ordeal was a national embarrassment.

Blasey Ford should not have needed to testify and the FBI should have investigated everything, because finding the whole truth would not have inflamed people so much and caused the political battle that enemies of Kavanaugh wanted.

There is a clear double standard here. It is the double standard of those who believe alleged victims blindly while not believing the accused. Times are changing in America, but I hope that we do not change the essential principle this country was founded on: innocent until proven guilty.