A reasonable person who has had the chance to reflect might think, “This is very bad for me, and unfair since I didn’t do this thing. But a reasonable person who has had a chance to think things through does not respond to those who are concerned about the allegation—and about doing right by the alleged victim—the way Kavanaugh has responded. Of course, even the most reasonable person might be irately incredulous when he first learns about the allegation against him. Whether or not the accusation is true, a reasonable person recognizes that credible evidence of this sort should be taken seriously, even if it comes at a cost to him. Kavanaugh’s behavior in response to the inquiry gives us a completely independent, completely adequate reason to think he is unqualified for this job. You should still think we should give the job to someone else. Suppose you  think the credible evidence doesn’t rise to the level of credibility at which we should give the job to someone else based on that evidence. Suppose you’re among those who disagree with me. I think reasonable people can disagree with me about this, and that’s why I thought that, since the Republicans clearly didn’t want to simply appoint someone else, there should at least be a delay and further inquiry. This is especially clear, it seems to me, when the job is a very powerful and prestigious one, when the candidate I opt against based on the credible evidence will not be left seriously badly off as a result of my choosing someone else—for example, when my choosing someone else will not mean that his kids go hungry—and when there are plenty of equally qualified candidates. If I’m looking to hire someone for a very important job, and I have very good reason based on credible evidence to believe he did something very bad and is unrepentant, it’s okay for me to use that credible evidence as a basis to choose a different candidate, even if the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt. ![]() That’s a very high standard, plausibly appropriate for a criminal trial, but not at all appropriate here. This doesn’t mean I think he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt. ![]() I basically thought that Blasey Ford’s testimony was credible enough that the Republicans should appoint someone else instead on the basis of that evidence alone. Now, in light of Kavanaugh’s testimony, and independent of Blasey Ford’s, I think Kavanaugh has shown himself to be unfit for appointment to the Supreme Court. Before the testimony, I thought only that further inquiry was in order. This makes me want to say why I think what I think as plainly as I can, because however wrong it might be, I’m almost certain it isn’t crazy or immoral or incomprehensible. ![]() I’ve never felt so strongly like I’m living in a completely different reality than those who disagree with me politically. I’ve been reading that the deliberations over Kavanaugh’s appointment in light of Blasey Ford’s allegations against him are firing up voters on the right in the sense that those voters, like Kavanaugh, find the mere investigation to be crazy, a moral outrage, incomprehensible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |