In a criminal trial, the burden of truth, of proof is on the prosecution. They must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of the crime. The defense has no need to prove their client didn’t do it, only that there isn’t sufficient evidence to convict. It’s why a jury returns one of two verdicts: “guilty” and “not guilty”. They don’t return “innocent”. They don’t really know. They are just saying there is not enough evidence to convict. So what does this mean?
In the case of someone being presented as a candidate to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the burden is different. There needs to be proof of “innocence”. The final arbiters of justice have to be above guilt or innocence, they need to be beyond reproach. Here, the burden of proof needs to be on innocence, not on “not guilty”. I don’t know what Brett Kavanaugh did or didn’t do. I know there is a credible accusation. I believed Anita Hill. I know that “pussy grabber in chief” nominated him. We need someone beyond reproach, not someone under a cloud of guilt. The Senate failed with Clarence Thomas. We deserve better and can only hope they don’t us fail again.