I did not listen to the hearings yesterday and I have not read the transcripts. I have read some news coverage and a few remarks from the blogosphere. Based on the little I heard both Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh gave sincere and compelling testimony.
My impression is that Democrats and Republicans heard very different things with very little intersection between the two. Republicans have tended to promote the criminal legal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof. In response Democrats have promoted the standard of civil trials—preponderance of the evidence.
Unless I am mistaken by either of those standards Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed. The only quasi-rational standard against it would be the precautionary principle and if that’s the standard to be applied it’s unclear how any elected or appointed official could meet it.
I watched the whole thing, a rarity for me. IMO the testimony resolves nothing – the only result is the usual motivated reasoning and hardening of positions. There was not much new in terms of empirical facts, not that anyone seems to care about empiricism, but the biggest newish evidence is Kavanaugh’s calendar. But bottom line is there was nothing dispositive for either side.
I found both of them credible, particularly the emotions in their opening statements. I think it’s quite likely they both believe they are telling the truth, which I think is a lot more common than people realize. Memory is a funny thing, so I think the chances that one of them is blatantly lying is probably pretty small.
No matter what happens with his nomination, it will be bad for the legitimacy of the court and the legitimacy of our form of government. Whoever “wins†should not celebrate too much. The revolution always devours it’s children.
But a choice must be made. I would prefer some kind of more complete investigation. If there was comity in the Senate they could establish a non-partisan fact-find mission and have staff interview all the relevant witnesses. I probably would not find anything dispositive, but at least it would salvage some shred of credibility for the dumpster fire this committee has become.
But ultimately there has to be a yay or nay. Neither is a good choice. I’m still going back and forth on which way I would go. I don’t want to enable the bad behavior by either side, but that is inevitable at this point thanks to the Senate and its dysfunction. At this point, I tend more to the side that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed simply because I perceive that course is likely to result in somewhat less of an impact on the court’s legitimacy. But it’s a hard call.
IMO the Court is losing legitimacy not merely because of ideological/partisan activism on the part of the justices but because they’re being asked to rule on cases that should never have been brought to the courts in the first place and even graver problems upstream.
I agree, there are multiple factors which negatively impact the court’s legitimacy.