American justice unravels

Is the presumption of innocence now being replaced by repetitious rhetoric and nefarious news? Check out the following story:

Recently, a report from a major Southern California newspaper claimed that Supreme

Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh was witnessed years ago exposing himself at a college dorm party.

One could also infer from the same story that the FBI was stonewalling an investigation and Republicans might be leading a possible cover-up.

These claims are certainly beyond belief for most reasonable persons — especially when it’s about a straight-laced guy like Justice Kavanaugh. During his confirmation, other questionable accusations of sexual misconduct also were a asserted, but none could stand up to scrutiny.

So how did this latest salacious story make its way into a Los Angeles newspaper?

The source first appeared in the New York Times. The article was based on a book authored by two of its reporters.

But even more amazing from this tenacious tale was the response by some high profile politicians. A number of Democrat legislators, along with presidential candidates Harris and Warren, called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Now here are the facts:

The Times and book authors based their accounts on statements made by one male “classmate”, along with hearsay from others, which originated from the same individual.

The alleged female victim was never interviewed. According to her friends, as well as a Sept. 14 NYT correction, she did not recall the incident.

Of course, a number of papers, as well as TV news media capitalizing on the original report, simply ignored the NYT correction.

So why do stories based on innuendo and outright falsehoods seem to continually find their way into our news sources?

Two explanations come to mind. The first is simply incompetence. But is this possible for reporters, who come from our finest journalism schools?

The second is simply egregious bias on the part of some. Perhaps they’re willing to sweep aside all forms of fairness, judicial objectivity and fact-finding in order to promote a specific cause?

In the case of Kavanaugh, there are those who fervently believe (without evidence, of course) that he will overturn the famous 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion.

These zealots maintain their selfrighteous justification and apparently stop at nothing in order to promote unfounded personal assumptions.

What is really distressing is the fact that some politicians supporting “the cause” have held important positions in the legal profession, including a former state attorney general and a former professor at Harvard Law.

If they are willing to accept baseless stories and publicly support the personal destruction of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, one has to ask if there is anything more devastating for the future of a fair-minded system?

It can be a thin line that separates us from a totalitarian approach to justice. Facts and the presumption of innocence mean nothing in these countries.

I hate being overly dramatic, but let’s face the consequences: If leaders with law degrees can condemn others without credible evidence and promote mob mentality in public, I shudder to think how this undaunted and unethical behavior will someday carry over to the American courtroom — that is, if it has not done so already.

Yet most of all, I feel such sadness for the cloud of hatred that has unjustly been placed over this man’s head. But what is worse is the effect on his children and what they must be going through on a daily basis. Is there any human decency left on the part of his opponents?

Since they have blamed this whole episode on an editing error, I suspect the answer is no.