Presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, right to face one’s accuser, the statute of limitations are being tossed out the door in the face of ever-increasing politicization of the institutions that are supposed to be non-partisan, unbiased, and independent. The American dream is liberty, and it’s most cherished value is freedom. Protecting these most cherished rights has been the guiding foundation of our legal system for our entire history.

When a citizen, any citizen, is accused of a crime, however heinous, the accuser has a right to be heard, but they do not have an automatic right to be believed.

Instead, they have something called a burden of proof based on a presumption of innocence of the accused. Common sense, if not hundreds of years of legal principle, would undergird the rationale for why this is the case. If one person can make an accusation against anyone, and automatically be believed, the liberty of every individual would be held hostage by any accuser regardless of truth or justice.

A contentious political climate

In the present climate under which Christine Blasey Ford has brought an allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, guilt has been instantly proclaimed based on political party affiliation rather than any examination of evidence or due process.

Several politicians have vowed from the beginning of the nomination process to do everything possible to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Perhaps no nomination in history has undergone the questioning, distraction, and disruption leveled at Judge Kavanaugh.

Independent of veracity, there is no doubt about the timing of this accusation and the goal of its promoters--stop Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, it is no surprise that some politicians have immediately declared that this accusation is truth personified. One Democratic Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, suspended all logic by arguing that she believes Ford’s claim is true because Ford is telling the truth. Someone, please ask Ms. Ford to declare that our nation’s multi-trillion dollar national deficit is actually a credit while this magic lasts.

Of course, it doesn’t take a legal or common sense scholar to recognize that making a statement and proving a statement are actually two distinct and separate concepts.

Protecting all of our rights

Unfortunately, for those that would rush to judgment making self-evident truth claims, they forget that the actual self-evident truths set forth in our Declaration of Independence assure us all the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If someone would deny any citizen these self-evident God-given truths, then they have the burden of proving the truth of their claim, and in criminal matters, that burden is extremely high as a reflection of the value that America places on freedom. To waive aside this burden and to shift the rights of the accused to the accuser, creating a new right that says all accusers should automatically be believed would be a terrifying new non-reality if it is permitted to continue.

In the case of Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh, however, there is a further legal consideration, and that is the statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations were created for a very specific reason, also with the protection of liberty in view. Memory is imperfect, particularly over time. The rationale for a statute of limitations on crimes is to make sure convictions only occur upon evidence that hasn’t deteriorated over time. This includes eyewitness testimony or physical evidence.

A background check is not an investigation

Christine Ford’s accusation is of an event that happened when both she and Brett Kavanaugh were juveniles, 36 years ago to the best of Ms. Ford’s recollection. She does not remember the location or even the year that it occurred.

She is reported to have confided it in 2012 to a therapist. The timing comes after all else has failed to stop or further delay the nomination process of a candidate that many have made a top priority to defeat.

The FBI has conducted six background checks on Kavanaugh. Adding Ms. Ford’s interview into consideration, it is difficult to understand how a 37-year-old claim of juvenile crime weighs against three decades of what is admittedly exceptional public service and judgeship by Kavanaugh according to a multitude of non-partisan sources, or the hundred women that have worked with Kavanaugh for decades and vouched in signed sworn statements as to his high character. Also, here is a "White Boy Rick" review.

As to the guilt or innocence of Brett Kavanaugh, that is a simple legal question, and the answer is equally as simple. He is innocent in the eyes of the law. There is no evidence that can be presented to overcome any burden of proof. The statute of limitations has run its course. The critics of President Donald Trump, and by proxy, any conservative judicial nomination he chooses, are going to have to decide if sacrificing principles of liberty and justice are worth winning partisan issues that are supposed to be non-partisan. The very foundation of liberty is at stake. Additionally, Jon Kyl will replace John McCain.