Senator Susan Collins {R, Me.}

Senator Susan Collins’ remarks on the presumption of innocence in the context of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to become a justice of the Supreme Court deserve some comment.  The presumption of innocence is a rule of law applicable in a criminal trial for the protection of the accused.  In that context, the law says that the prosecution must prove its case against the defendant by clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jury is such a criminal trial is presumed to be impartial, and the procedures at trial are intended to make the production of evidence full, fair and open.  Turning now to the treatment of the allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh, I put aside, for the moment, the impartiality of the decision makers – the members of the United States Senate.  Looking, instead, at the production of evidence concerning the allegations, the inquiry into the facts of the matter was not, to any degree, full, fair or open.

The members of the United States Senate are not impartial decision makers.  In respect of the confirmation of a presidential nomination to a seat on the Supreme Court, the decision is political.  The senators are not bound by any rule of law, unlike a jury, and are free to vote for any reason or variety of reasons – other than that an individual’s vote must not be cast for a corrupt reason, which is notoriously difficult to prove.


In her remarks, Senator Collins reduce the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh to a he-said she-said dispute between two fine young people, but given the presumption of innocence, she prefers to believe the nominee.  Inasmuch as the facts have not been explored and tested in the crucible of public view in the rigors of a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence normally due to an accused is far from persuasive.  This seems to me a weak means to hide the true motives for Senator Collins’ decision.  For all its pretention, Senator Collins’ remarks do not, in my view sustain the dignity of her office.