Senators,Our system of jurisprudence has always been based on the tenet of the presumption of innocence. The accuser must meet the burden of proving the accusation is true.
As a Justice on the Supreme Court, would you have had me rule that the burden was on Dredd Scott to show why he should be an American citizen, or should that burden have been on Sandford to demonstrate why Mr. Scott should not be a citizen?
Should the burden have been on Oliver Brown to show that the separate school his daughter was forced to attend was not equal to closer white-attended schools, or should that burden have been placed on the Topeka Board of Eductation to prove that "separate but equal" schooling was necessary?
Should I rule that the burden was on Ernesto Miranda to know his full legal rights when he was arrested, or should Arizona police have to inform Mr. Miranda of his right to an attorney when they arrested him?
Should Norma McCorvey have to justify to the state why she needed an abortion? Should Fred Korematsu have to prove his loyalty to the United States? Should women have to demonstrate their competency to sit on juries? Should the Cantwell family have to prove that their public expression of religion was not a breach of the peace and a public disturbance?
In our system, the accused has a right to know the specific charges and factual evidence against him or her. It is a mockery of our judicial system to suggest that a sitting federal appellate judge, or anyone else for that matter, has to prove his innocence against vague, unspecified, and suddenly recalled allegations, when the very essence of being a judge is to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the accuser. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not on those who are their targets.
Thank you.
-PJ
Nice one, Junkie.