During the time when Clarence Thomas was being charged by Anita Hill, there was a lot of talk about “proof” of Hill’s charges. The Senate acted as though they were a jury, and if there was reasonable doubt about the allegations brought forward by Hill, they had to find Thomas not guilty — or something like that. The burden of proof was placed on the accuser. Thomas seemed to be “innocent until proven guilty” in the eyes of the committee.
This is entirely the wrong way of considering confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The most salient point I heard made during that time — and it was not, unfortunately, made by a Senator — was this: It’s not a trial. It’s a job interview. Importantly, the burden of proof really should be on the job applicant to demonstrate his (in both cases) worthiness and appropriateness for the job. Would you hire someone to an important position who had shown the character flaws revealed in this job applicant? All you need, to turn down the applicant, is sufficient doubt that he would be a good hire for the position.
I’d really like to see the Judiciary Committee members pointing this out over and over, until “It’s not a trial, it’s a job interview” becomes a familiar saying, repeated by news anchors and pundits. [This can be done. I was in a pre-trial deposition once and the prosecutor said his goal was to get the judge using the phrase “XXX YYY ZZZ” by the end of the day. Which he was, indeed, doing.]
Maybe we could all point this out to our Judiciary Committee senators?