Brett Kavanaugh
Various bloggers and Facebook friends – Democrats, Republicans, and “independents” – have been sharing articles and blog posts under, roughly, the following description: “This is the best item I’ve read about the U.S. Supreme Court candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations against him by Christine Blasey Ford.” The pieces they’ve shared have expressed a wide range of views about the affair.
Well, this article by Nathan J. Robinson is the best thing I’ve read.
It’s meticulous.
It confirms what I thought when I heard Kavanaugh give his testimony: This guy seems dishonest, and his reasoning is shoddy enough that his appointment to the Supreme Court would be a disaster.
Not all of Robinson’s arguments are convincing. But more than enough of them are.
Some conclusions:
(1) Perjury: Kavanaugh told falsehoods under oath. Again and again. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes with a reckless disregard for the truth. And he did so concerning issues that matter to his own credibility, to the credibility of his accuser, and to the discovery of the truth.
(2) Evasion: In response to straightforward questions, Kavanaugh changed the subject. Again and again. …
(3) Testimonial sufficiency: Certain “subjective” considerations (such as the aggressiveness of Kavanaugh’s tone) are much less important than the content of the testimonies. This content, along with fact-checking, suffices to establish (1) and (2). And (1) and (2), along with plausible principles about who may be appointed as a judge (e.g., “An appointee must not be recently guilty of perjury”), suffice to disqualify Kavanaugh as a judge in the Supreme Court (or anywhere!). As Robinson puts it: “At this point there is absolutely no need” for further investigation “unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it.”
To summarize: even if Kavanaugh didn’t assault Ford, he certainly lied and, in other ways, made the truth harder rather than easier to assess. These facts should disqualify him from being allowed to join the Supreme Court.
Well, this article by Nathan J. Robinson is the best thing I’ve read.
It’s meticulous.
It confirms what I thought when I heard Kavanaugh give his testimony: This guy seems dishonest, and his reasoning is shoddy enough that his appointment to the Supreme Court would be a disaster.
Not all of Robinson’s arguments are convincing. But more than enough of them are.
Some conclusions:
(1) Perjury: Kavanaugh told falsehoods under oath. Again and again. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes with a reckless disregard for the truth. And he did so concerning issues that matter to his own credibility, to the credibility of his accuser, and to the discovery of the truth.
(2) Evasion: In response to straightforward questions, Kavanaugh changed the subject. Again and again. …
(3) Testimonial sufficiency: Certain “subjective” considerations (such as the aggressiveness of Kavanaugh’s tone) are much less important than the content of the testimonies. This content, along with fact-checking, suffices to establish (1) and (2). And (1) and (2), along with plausible principles about who may be appointed as a judge (e.g., “An appointee must not be recently guilty of perjury”), suffice to disqualify Kavanaugh as a judge in the Supreme Court (or anywhere!). As Robinson puts it: “At this point there is absolutely no need” for further investigation “unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it.”
To summarize: even if Kavanaugh didn’t assault Ford, he certainly lied and, in other ways, made the truth harder rather than easier to assess. These facts should disqualify him from being allowed to join the Supreme Court.