13:25 GMT +310 December 2018
Listen Live
    Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in before testifying during the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington.

    Democrats Will Fail If They Try to Impeach Kavanaugh - Legal Scholar

    © AP Photo/ Tom Williams
    Opinion
    Get short URL
    242

    Trump Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court Justice of the United States after being confirmed by the Senate on Saturday. Sputnik asked legal scholar Jak Allen to summarize some of the important details of his rancorous confirmation process.

    Sputnik: What do you make of the fact that some Democrats have floated the idea of the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh following his confirmation? Is that at all a feasible option? Have there been similar precedents in US history?

    Jak Allen: I think they may try, and I suspect that they would ultimately fail. In fact I'm fairly confident in that…I did see it mentioned a few times by Democratic heads. [Congressman] Jerry Nadler talked about the possibility, or at least a more substantial investigation into the allegations. He would head the House Judiciary Committee, assuming that the Democrats win the House in the midterms.

    The issue for the Democrats is that the FBI investigation [of Kavanaugh] has fallen far short of their expectations. The problem for them is that if we got to an impeachment proceeding, then you'd have the House Judiciary Committee conduct an investigation and recommend the charges; then it would approve it and put forward articles of impeachment for a vote; if the House votes for it, which is entirely possible given a Democratic majority after the midterms, then you'd have a trial in the Senate which requires a two-thirds majority vote to convict.

    So in essence it's near impossible, and even if the Democrats won the Senate, they'd still need to convince a good number of Republicans, which is just so unlikely in this age of partisanship.

    Sputnik: Trump wrote in his twitter that the anti-Kavanaugh push was sponsored by Soros and others. What's your take on that?

    Jak Allen: I'm not completely sure; I don't know the specifics regarding that. Of course, there will always be strong injections of money by left wing groups to support these causes. But most people protesting, for example, would likely have some sort of legitimate cause, or personal cause, or ideology they believe in. We know Trump is an opportunist, and his message has always been that the system is rigged. People like Soros have been open in their opposition not only to Trumpism but populism in general.

    So whether it's true or not I'm not sure. But I think the broader thing to look at here is that when a [Democratic president] eventually nominates someone to the Court, there will be the same calls of opposition by Republicans, and the same types of money packs being injected. It's just [a question of] whether it reaches as vicious [a state] as we've seen with regard to this nomination.

    Sputnik: What is your opinion on this backward 'guilty until proven innocent' approach in this Kavanaugh controversy? What do you think that's about?

    Jak Allen: With this type of topic, you have to tread a very fine line, as it heightens a lot of passion. We live in a day and age of social media, where there seem to be black and white answers to everything, but not much grey in between. I'm not an expert on sexual assault, but I think the Me Too movement is incredibly important in a world where we aspire to greater justice. The most important thing however is creating a fine balance between hearing those voices of accusers and victims and giving people their day in court.

    Kavanaugh was not on criminal trial, of course, but he did face the court of public opinion, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenant of any democratic form of government. The understanding has always historically been that the accused comes forward with their claims, and the defense responds. You should go into anything, such as the hearings of Ford and Kavanaugh, with a healthy and skeptical mind. There's obviously still no corroborative evidence, and looking from a legal perspective, I'm not sure what other way you can approach it.

    So it's kind of like the notion of free speech, and there needs to be a discussion about how we go forward with such contentious problems. Surely we want to maintain the very foundations that keep a democracy healthy, including the presumption of innocence. If that right is corrupted, we're going to blur the line between innocent and guilty people, and allow people in power to manipulate that system.

    Jak Allen is a PhD candidate at the school of history at the University of Kent. The views expressed by Mr. Allen are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

    Related:

    WATCH Capitol Police Detain Topless Activist Protesting Kavanaugh's Confirmation
    Trump Calls Democrats 'Too Dangerous' to Govern Amid Kavanaugh Confirmation
    Republican Senator Graham: 'Roles Were Reversed' During Kavanaugh Process
    Brett Kavanaugh Sworn In as 114th US Supreme Court Justice
    Trump Says Looking Forward to Kavanaugh Vote
    Tags:
    presumption of innocence, law, impeachment, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik