Years from now, when no one remembers the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, some particularly astute historian may write about them as a watershed moment in the disrespect of evidence. I have long complained about small minds choosing to dwell on particulars while ignoring principles. Most commentators on this travesty called a “confirmation hearing” tend to focus on their own agenda. Democrats and their allies say they care only what Mr. Kavanaugh might have done in his foolish youth. Republicans and their allies insist that Demo
litionistscrats are caviling about his youthful indicretions advances…(um, we’re not sure what they were or whether they were, but no matter) as a matter of protecting abortion rights and sticking it to Trump (if you are reading this many years hence, Trump, first name Donald, is currently President of the United States, a large country that once existed as a haven of peace and prosperity relative to the rest of the world, before succumbing to rampant selfishness and breaking up into 5 separate enclaves).
Daniel Henniger writing for the Wall St. Journal has a way of nailing the big picture; here is an excerpt from his column: “It is still true: What begins as tragedy can end as farce. So it is with the case of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she was 15 and he was 17. Ms. Ford’s lawyer said her client would not appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee until there is a “full investigation by law-enforcement officials.” Like the Mueller excavations, that could run to the horizon, unable to find anything but unwilling to stop until it finds something. Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford’s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.
Consider the spectacle: Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice. Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants. Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind. The Kavanaugh nomination, “given what we know,” has come down to an undiscoverable accusation. The defeat of a Supreme Court nominee on this basis would be a victory for a level of conscious political nullification not seen in the U.S. for a long time. Republicans in the Senate shouldn’t allow it, and voters in November should not affirm it.”
What was Brett Kavanaugh guilty of? Is he lying now, or telling the truth? If he is lying, he should not be confirmed, even though the Supreme Court has it’s share of dishonest decisions. But the point is larger than him or his confirmation. THE POINT IS, WHEN “EVIDENCE” IS AN UNPROVABLE ACCUSATION, THE VERY IDEA OF EVIDENCE ITSELF IS MOCKED! HAVE WE BECOME LIKE THE NATIONS WHICH RULE BY SHOW TRIALS?? showtrial
Hard to believe, but even the New York Times agrees. believability