I want to recommend this post from Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy to your attention. It was recommended in comments yesterday and I found it particularly good. Consider this paragraph:
believe there should be a more thorough investigation of the various accusations. At this point, I find it hard to say whether they are likely to be true or not. I also think it’s very possible that even the best feasible investigation will still leave us with little more knowledge of what happened than we have now. More tentatively, I think the burden of proof should be roughly even between the two sides.
which approximates my views on the accusations that have been leveled at Brett Kavanaugh. It’s fairly short so I encourage you to read it in full.
I only have a few things to add to it. How do you recognize when motivated reasoning is at work? One rule of thumb is when you see all sorts of special pleading or just plain ignoring of behavior in your political or ideological allies that you are condemning in your political or ideological opponents you should suspect that the positions you are staking out are opportunistic and instrumental rather than reasoned or principled.
The second is that what I see going on around me is incompatible with republican government. The basic requirement for republican government is the ability to compromise. If you believe your own views reflect absolute good while those of your opponents reflect absolute evil, where is there room for compromise?
Well the first piece of evidence that is not testimony! Kavanaugh’s calendar from 1982, which does not look altered.
Of course; it cannot probe or disprove the core allegation. But there are some useful pieces of information in there.
I think 17 year old Kavanaugh would have laugh at the idea 52 year old Kavanaugh would need that calendar.
I don’t know why he would say the burden of proof should be “roughly even.” I don’t even know how that would work. I think the issue is that there are two different things going on.
Mr. K. was appointed to a position subject to the requirement of advise and consent. The review is both deferential and independent. I would describe Mr. K and his advocates of having the burden to persuade 50 Senators to consent to the President’s decision.
OTOH, Ford has alleged the existence of new facts that if true would be considered as disqualifying. We know that it might be disqualifying because the Committee is having a hearing on it. Even if they believe Mr. K’s nomination should be confirmed, if the new matter was true it would appear that he would not be confirmed. But because the new facts are almost entirely in the possession of Ford, there is no system of law or logic, that would not place a burden on Ford to produce all of the facts in her possession in order to advocate his disqualification. To the extent, she produces facts, Mr. K should be expected to respond to the extent he can do so.
Maybe that all is roughly equivalent, but not distinguishing these two things is where you start to read people saying Mr. K has to prove his innocence of a crime he may know nothing about, which is quite Kafkaesque.
Motivational reasoning is pretty much baked into political decisionmaking, but it was made worse here because the Ford matter was introduced after the Committee hearing was over and they were scheduled to vote. People had already made up their mind or at least were very close to doing so, when this matter emerged. And now the question will seem to be whether Ford changes anybody’s mind, which would IMHO have been more effectively presented at the outset.
Let me restate that the way I think of it. Dr. Ford or her team have an obligation to substantiate her accusations in some form other than character references or hearsay. Kavanaugh or those supporting him have an obligation to make the best case they can they he didn’t do it other than character references or hearsay, taking into account that it’s darned hard to prove a negative.
Then the Senate should vote. Being the Senate their votes will undoubtedly be for political or ideological reasons rather than based on facts and evidence.
“Being the Senate their votes will undoubtedly be for political or ideological reasons ”
Yup, but it is the system we have. I hope that people accept the results.
I actually like PD’s explanation a lot. Makes things more understandable.
Steve
It’s all irrelevant. We now know that some woman was a rape party junkie, app entry serially going for the thrill of the watch, to the point she doesn’t even report them, saving the opportunity for future viewings. Sounds plausible, eh?
Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have any material way to substantiate anything. All we really know is that he categorically denies it. She seems to have rather selective memory and a serious need to be murky about coming forth. YMMV.
“Being the Senate their votes will undoubtedly be for political or ideological reasons rather than based on facts and evidence.â€
So what’s the point of the show?
Hmmmm. “ Polygraph test,†ahem, apparently released. Sham test. Contradictions with Post/Feinstein latter.
C’mon man.
I read Ilya Somin’s article, and what I got out of it was ‘well Ford has made a serious accusation so we have to give her and every other accuser the benefit of the doubt because maybe just maybe some smidgen of the accusations MIGHT be true even though no one’s produced any credible evidence whatsoever or will testify or make a sworn statement or anything that might get them in LEGAL trouble because a woman would never EVER lie about anything so horrific as what happened to her. To cut it short, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because there’s a possibility that an unsubstantiated accusation MIGHT be true. BS times infinity. Somin is so blindly anti-Trump Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi wouldn’t pass his muster if Trump submitted their names for the Supreme Court. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed after this vicious insane fiasco, it’s Katy bar the door and stock up on ammunition because no male public figure alive who isn’t a rabid Leftist (and not necessarily even then if they’re expendable to the Cause) will ever be safe again from their enemies, political or otherwise.