Big shilling over at The Atlantic courtesy of Benjamin Wittes. Please read THIS ARTICLE. It’s an article I never imagined myself reading, that I never wanted to read, that I wish I could unread. But I did so here’s the analysis.
This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.
[Read Caitlin Flanagan on Christine Blasey Ford: “I believe her.”][See a trend here???]
I am also keenly aware that rejecting Kavanaugh on the record currently before the Senate will set a dangerous precedent. The allegations against him remain unproven. They arose publicly late in the process and, by their nature, are not amenable to decisive factual rebuttal. It is a real possibility that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that he has had his life turned upside down over a falsehood. Even assuming that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are entirely accurate, rejecting him on the current record could incentivize not merely other sexual-assault victims to come forward—which would be a salutary thing—but also other late-stage allegations of a non-falsifiable nature by people who are not acting in good faith. We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it.
Despite all of that, if I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I would do it both because of Ford’s testimony and because of Kavanaugh’s. For reasons I will describe, I find her account more believable than his. I would also do it because whatever the truth of what happened in the summer of 1982, Thursday’s hearing left Kavanaugh nonviable as a justice.
A few days before the hearing, I detailed on this site the advice I would give to Kavanaugh if he asked me. He should, I argued, withdraw from consideration for elevation unless able to defend himself to a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford. He should remain a nominee, I argued, only if his defense would be sufficiently convincing that it would meet what we might term the “no asterisks” standard—that is, that it would plausibly convince even people who vociferously disagree with his jurisprudential views that he could serve credibly as a justice. His defense needed to make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one, that he might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade.
No, it does not get any better. There’s a real possibility the claim is false, asserted with no evidence whatsoever. Yet, of course, Brett should (must) refrain from attacking his attacker. (NO SELF DEFENSE ALLOWED!) Blah, blah, blah, she’s still more believable than him…
“His defense needed to make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect…” What. The. Actual. Hell? Wittes isn’t a moron, or so I think. I could be wrong. It’s more likely that he’s working his game extra hard while assuming the people are stupid. Many wouldn’t disappoint him.
When defending yourself against baseless allegations, made at the most opportune time, by a shameless and obvious liar, one in league with your sworn enemies, kindly structure your defense in such a manner as to coddle a nonexistent other sworn enemy. Got that?
When I read the “reasonable pro-choice woman” thing it stuck in my mind. A few paragraphs later I was still pondering it. I thought to return once I finished but, as luck would have it, Witte (rhymes with sh!t) repeated it. He even added, “reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind…”
He quoted known traitor James Comey, “If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness,” regarding Kavanaugh – though the quote much better fits Ford. How many lies have been confirmed from her concocted story now? Is it not safe to believe that nothing she said was safe to believe?
The Senate Dems have conclusively demonstrated there are no reasonable democrats or liberals on Capitol Hill. In fact, reasonable persons are hard to find anywhere in D.C. Reasonable pro-choice women simply do not exist. How reasonable could one be who actively desires to murder her own offspring?
I recently, maybe a week ago, had a conversation with an attorney about the “reasonable man” standard. In legal proceedings (trials, hearings, etc.) many decisions and questions are framed in terms of what a reasonable man, in similar circumstances, would do or would have done. The standard is all but dead; there are nearly no reasonable men left in America. Witte, through his pandering, demonstrates that – strangely but reframing the standard into impossibility.
We know these people by their works, their words in this case. Thankfully these were offered in a slanted publication very few read. Witte ends, “As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.” Great. Good. Thankfully, you don’t have that option. Now, take your “conscience” and your incomprehensible snake oil and go.
PS: Perhaps Trump shall mention some of this in his (delayed) cellphone address to the nation? Maybe with mention of arrests starting? We can only hope.
PPS: Judge K. is going to make it. I understand 53-47 is floated as the breakdown, which will mean confirmation. It’s reasonable.
PERRIN LOVETT 