Judge Kavanaugh's promotion to the US SCt: winning for whom, and losing for whom?

OR IS IT A QUESTION REGARDING THE BURDEN OF PROOF?

-- The hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee remains:

--a record of Professor Ford's account without corroborating evidence and much memory gap...

--A record of an emotional, combative, and angry Judge Kavanaugh (at times, unwillingness or inability to answer with conviction or definiteness).

Part of the cornerstone of American jurisprudence is the age-old concept that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (it means 100% sure).

FROM such cornerstone came one Supreme Court Justice's well-known saying that "it's better to let one guilty man go free than imprisoning an innocent" (something like that; I have forgotten the name of the Justice; shame on me)...

Here, the man is not going to jail; he is going to the...U.S. Supreme Court, to sit as part of IT!

VARIOUS STANDARDS OF PROOF IN THE LAW:

--If this had been a criminal case, Ford v, Kavanaugh, Professor Ford may lose!  (burden of proof: BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT -- 100%).  She's the one who brought the claim! She (and the state who prosecutes her claim for her) bears the ultimate burden of proof.  But has all evidence been admitted in court?

--Plus, at the heart of the U.S. criminal justice system is the tenor of the Speedy Trial Act.  How long has it been before the "trial"?  And, is one week of expert investigation enough to serve justice?   

--next level of burden of proof : CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

--next level of quantifying or qualifying record/evidence:  SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

--next level (the least stringent):  PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (applicable in most civil cases):  51%  (at times, this means prevailing credibility in "he said/she said" cases).

--What, then, is the "standard of proof," if any, in a Senate confirmation hearing, or is it just the "judgment call" of the people's representatives?  (the "stare decisis" seems to be Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas matter decades ago).

In the Senate, under "advice and consent" authority, is it the "partisan" standard?

___

Is this Ford v. Kavanaugh?
Or, GOOD WOMEN vs. BAD MEN?
Or,Democrats vs  Republicans?
Or, the American People vs. the Establishment?
Or, the Powerless vs. the Powerful?
Or, the KNOW NOT vs. the KNOWING? 
etc.etc.etc.

POSTSCRIPT:  For Vietnamese readers who read me on FB:  Is it analogous to the standard I use in looking at the definition of "Chamber Music" for Vietnamese music and its listeners (not the same as the standard elsewhere in a larger, more universal context):

"Chamber Music ain't Chamber Music" here, or there...."

Remember, according to President Clinton (under his own crisis):  about the truth that one tells? Well, "It depends on what "IS"  IS"

WND C2018

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/kavanaugh-on-the-issues/index.html