[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The presumption of innocence technically does not apply to nomination confirmations. The question is not whether the person should or should not be jailed, or even just put on parole. It is whether he should be given a job — in this case a lifetime job on the Supreme Court.

If character matters for a president who can only give us grief for 8 years, then it should really matter for a SCOTUS judge. Too many questions could be enough. There is no bright line of "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "more likely than not." It is not unreasonable to withhold confirmation just because there were too many unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions.

If you review this thread you'll see that Mister Ohio argues for and against the presumption of innocence depending on whether or not the principal advances his extreme right-wing position in a particular context. So he argued for the presumption of innocence in the case of Kavanaugh and argues against it in the case of Andrew Gillum. I agree with you that it is a legal right that applies to the accused in a criminal trial. Neither Kavanaugh nor Gilliam have been charged with criminal offenses so the presumption of innocence is irrelevant to their situations at this time. When Mr Ohio misapplies the principal he is just parroting his idol Donald Trump. You will recall that that kind of mimicry was encouraged in the local church where the idol was Witness Lee. Habits learned by the herd die hard.